(brtztf#? xbjpf
[No. XCIV.-j
THE TABLET
No. XCIV
" A desire to support a party often obtains the cha
racter and anpuiers the end oj patriotism."
PUBLIC affairs procced with most alacrity
andfuccefs, when a considerable degree of
party-spirit prevails. Though it may be carried
to such excels as to overthrow a government, yet
ionic portion of it is necellary to give vigour to
public ineafurfcs. There is in molt men such a
temper of felfiihnefs as will induce them tocoun
leratftthe welfare of the community. This istoo
stubborn to be controled merely by a fente of du
ty. It can therefore only be managed by causes
more energetic than itlelf. In this view lam
induced to believe, that party spirit may operate
as a remedy against those private prejudices, per
sonal caprices, and local attachments, that com
bine to impede the national prosperity.
When the leading characters of a country are
divided into two parties, each of which has some
common views or feelings to cement them,it pro
duces a concert of meafuies, which is often benefi
cial to the community. One party some times
predominates, which,from a turn in affairs,yields
afterwards to the predomiriancy ot the other.
But whichever of thein has the ascendency, the
spirit of parry still invigorates the actions of both.
By this means, conliderations,merely private,are
abforded by a regard to party-interests, which
frequently assume the name of patriotism. In a
public affembly,compofed of individuals who felt
no party attachments, the debates would take a
desultory turn and seem to be directed to no fixed
objedi. Personal vanity or whim would tempt
the speakers to come forward with ixsw and An
gular propositions, and there would be no com
mon principle to check their irregularities. It
would belike fkirmilhing at random, where every
man discharges his fit e at such a mark as his Fan
cy suggests, or perhaps at no mark at all. But
in a public aflcmbly where there are two deter
mined parties, the abilities of the speakers atft
in concert anil are direifted to a common center.
This combination of talents affords an able dif■
culion of subjects, while each fideexpofes the er
rors, that the other attemps to inculcate.
There are not now, in the United States, any
eftabliihed parties in the government, who uni
formly take lides, ill important queltions. The
diftindtion of whig and tory does not exist with so
much force, to affedt political arrange
ments. The mercantile and landed interests have
n it such a decided opposition of views, as to pro
duce an inveterate party fpiric. Some people
will pretend that federal and antifederal charadt
ors are at so great variance in opinions, that they
may be considered as established parties In govern
ment. Ido not however view them inthislight.
Their diversity of fentiinents is not so wide ;
their feelings of dislike to each other are not so
keen and inflexible, as to constitute a uniform
division ih public debate, corresponding to those
cliaradteriftics. Our government has less to fear
from the zeal and adtivity of its enemies than
from the languor and inattention of its friends.
If its enemies appeared more formidable, its
friends faould really be more vigilant.
HOUSE Of REPRESENTATIVES,
FRIDAY, FEB. 19, 1790.
In Committee of the tvfole, on the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury,
Mr. Madfon" smot'w'nfor a difcr initiation y Jti I hinder corf deration.
MR. ScorT observed that, inasmuch as he had exprefled his
fenriment6 generally on the fubjeft now under confidcra
tio«, when it bore a finape somewhat different from the prefrnt.,
and confideting that perhaps he might be induced to vote in a
manner that would not be understood without an explanation, he
requested the indulgence of the committee, whilst he attempted
to offer his sentiments freely upon the business immediately under
their notice.
The arguments of the gentlemen in opposition to the present
motion, when taken altogether, seem to reft their whole force
upon the idea of a contract said to be made, and of which con
tract the papers in que (lion are said to he evidences. This is a
doflrine which he absolutely denied. If those papers are evi
dences of any thing, it is of the pre-existing contrafb broken. At
what period, a iked Mr. Scott, did Congress contrail with their
soldiers ? At what period did they contratt with their citizens,
who furnifhed the neceflfary lupplies for our army ? Was it at the
time thole papers were issued, or long before ?—lt was long be
fore : consequently those papers cannot be esteemed as possible
evidences of any contrast, unless we refer to an implied contrail
made when they were ifltued, at theconcVufion of the war ; which,
in ta&, was the last conceivable period for the fettlcment of such
engagements as had exiiled long before, and to fulfil which was
totally out of the power of Congfefi. Surely then it must be al
lowed, tince it was not in their power to fulfil the original en
gagements, and finer it was not m the power of interested indi
viduals to compel them to compliance—that the contratt was com
pletely annihilated. and Congress was reduced to the neceffxty of
PUBLISHED WEDNESDAYS AND SATURDAYS BY JOHN fFNNO, No. 9, ?,'AIi)l£N-LANh, NEW-YORK.
CONGRESS.
SATURDAY, march, 6, 1790.
offering some consideration in lieu thereof. What did they offer?
Papers of the nominal value of 20s. but of no more real value than
2S. 6d.
The original creditor, in consideration of the distress of his
country, and from dire neceflity, accepted of this ; and would,
with equal gencrtrfit-y, have accepted of the 2s. 6d. in cash, and
have figncd an acquitance for his pay as freely as he afligned o
ver that paper for 2s. 6d. to the speculator. Now if it be urged
by gentlemen, that this tranfaftion implies a contrail, it may be
confefled the papers in (jueftion afc evidences of such implied con
tract ; but of the real exiflence whereof there is ho proof.
Mr. Scott said he would also aver, that if we are to be #ovtrti
ed by this implied contract, the real value of the paper in question
is at ortce fixed by the mafket price, then current at as. 6d. in the
pound : the residue is the last grand fieri (ice which the original
creditors, as well citizens a? soldiers, made to iheir beloved coun
try. Thence it is evident there was no original consent of parties
obtained ; and hence no original contract exiited. This, said he,
is fair reasoning, against which no logic should prevail ; it is ar
guing from the truth, and the fcternal nature and fithefi of things.
But those papers, it has been said, are not only evidences of
contratt, but since they are payable to A. B. or bearer, the beare
is an original contra&or ! Where will this argument lead us ? /
robber on the high-way, a private thief, a fraudulent purchase
without cotifideration—if this argument be admitted—may all o
fcveially become bearer*. Are they severally original contrast
>rs ? Surely, no gentleman will pretend to fay that they arc
Neither is it poflible to detett those frauds, if what has been faic
is true, that many of those certificates were taken out originally
in fi&itious names. Suppdfe one of them has got into the hand
of the robber, the burglar, or thief; how will that man who ne
ver existed, appear in cotirt and convict him of the fraud ? Frotr
these premises, Mr. Scott inferred, that as this was a cafe with
out remedy, the bare poffeflion of a certificate is not a fuflicieni
evidence to prove the holder was an original cofitra&or.
At an early stage of this business the gentlemen in opposition tc
he amendment appeared to lay great ftreis on the want of autho
rity iti Congress to intermeddle in such cases : But as we get tor
ward the gentlemen appear to give up ; they have been beaten ofl
hat ground ; and the impolicy and impra&icability of the mca
ure is principally urged. Yesterday, however, these fame gen
lemen abandoned the latter, and tefumed the former Ration with
jreat avidity.
We are likewite tol<3, that altho in the parliament of Great-
Britain, vrtiich is Omnipotent, they can do anything: Yet we,
!>eirtg a Tfcgiflatitfe body whose authority is constitutionally con
ined to certain objects, cannot make the proposed aifcrimination.
Let us make some enquiry into this. Is not the whole business
>efore us of such a nature, that without our legislative interference
t irinft remain eternally aS it is ? 'fhis, it may be presumed, will
>e granted On all hands What folldws ? That as it is a proper
übieft of legislative difcuflion, the legiflatur* must, of neceflity,
nd from the nature of the thing, poflefs all poWefs neceflfary to
loingwhatis right and just in the premises ; and consequently
ve have the powef of discriminating, if justice and right demand
t. The arguments, thereto**, Which the gentlemen have adopted
>n this fdbjeft, as well as many others to v. hich they have occafi
mally retorted, must appear to the committee as p*rfe&ly incon
iftent and futile.
It may be Aeceflary, however, to aavert to one or two othet
samples of the fame complexion.
We are told, 44 that the advocates of the proposed amendment
ire acting oflicioufly ; no complaints having been laid before the
House ; no petitions ; no parties contending before us ; therefore,
fay thev, we have nothing to do witH,it ; (here Mr. Scott advert
ed to Mr. Bcnfon) thequeftion is not legally before the coUrt, &c."
This is, in similar Jjhrafe, " there is no writ foed out; no bill
filed ; no issue joined between parties."
In anfwerto this argument, said Mr. Scott, it is neceflary only
o obfefve, that every complaint of the people, by virtue of the
eptcfentattve capacity of their members, is properly, and to all
ntents and f>urpofes, before the House.
But we are further told, u that no facts have been proved ; we
lave no evidence, therefore we cannot proceed. " He granted that
io witneflfes had appeared to make oath, no swearing in court;
>ut will it follow from thence tfhat we are hot potfefled of the facts r
"ic presumed n6t. If the facts are within our knowledge, we are
nas full poHellion of them as if they hid been fwom to ; and
or many other facts, neceflary to the inveiligation of this bufi
iefs, we can resort to our public records. Moreover, there is
ittle use of evidence, Other than to inforrti ahd convincethe minds
)f the judges. As to the fruth and fallacy of the objection, how
hat information and h<fppens, it is very indifferent;
specially in a legislative body. In a word, the arguments to be
onterided wirti appear to move in so small and contracted a lphere,
s riever to extend beyond' rtie pleadings at the bar ol a county
ourt ; and consequently were vetfy unworthy the attentioh ot
he great American court of equity.
Mr. Scott remarked that,from these obfervation c ,it might be fUp
«oftd he would vote for the proposed amendment ; but he laid,he
clieved he fhould 1 not : Not on account of the demerit of the pro
»ofition,or the meri tof the arguments *hirh had been uled againlt
t. There were other confederations which cxifted, which Were
otonly unprovided for in the amendment, but it feemedto hin
if thev -re tarred therefrom.
as if tliey weK
One of these which came immediately within his own knov
edge and which mufrbe like-wise within ihe knowledge of m;
ny gentlemen in the House, oAc of whom had already mentione.
it, is this : Our quarter'-mafters, purchafeis, contraaors, die. o
Come of them, have been sent outamongft some of our citizens t<
procure supplies, without a (hilling in their pock ts : 1 hey havt
bbught, on trust, from individuals ; afterwaids, those individual
have been prevailed upon (without payment being made) to givt
receipts, as if they had been a£lually paid, on a pretext thaltht
accounts of the purchaser could not be fettled, nor money ob
taincd to p'aV thCiti, without those previous acquittances, " hen
thi» business originated He knew not, but he vouched for the Ia Hi
m a great number of inffcmceS to have come within hisknowledge.
The eonfequence appears to be,that those purchasers.on producing
the receipts, have obtained certificates foi the aggregate sum ir
their ovtfn names, as if for supplies by them furnittied and hav<
made no latisfaftion to the individuals.
Now, with refpea to thisfpecies of paper,thus procured by Iraiic
and lfTued without consideration given by the pcrfons to whom il
sued, he said he could not confertt to fund . Nav, he would loon
er part witfi his right'hand than content to fund certificates thu
circurtiftanced, and thereby fubjeft those very individuals thu
robbed of then property,to contribute towards paying the price o
that very property into the pockets of their robbers.
Shall it here be said, " the, courts are open, and the individuals
may there be redrerfed ?" Poor alternative indeed ! Where I, said
Mr. Scott, to (land upon this floor and hold forth such doctrine
as this, " that the courts are open — that the constitution contem
plates the United States as a body that may sue and be sued, and
«t£s,
PRICE THREE HOLLARS PR. ANN
points out certain proceedings which shall be had when the Uni
ted States become a party —and that therefore every holder of a
certificate has the recovery ot the money in his pow.r, on applica*
tion to the courts—ahd should I conclude that Congress has no
thing to do with the present business t"—Pray, what should I
mtrit by such pleadings ? 1 doubt whether I should merit pity—
contempt I might be certain of receiving.
Suffer me to ask, if the evil I have mentioned, be not too gener
al in its nature to adtnit of any remedy) but by a legislative mter
pofition ? May not many of those contractors be in a state of bank
ruptcy ? May not some of them have travelled to the Spanish main
to govern colonies ? May not Tome of thern havereturned to their
usual places of abode, at many hundred miles distance from the
defrauded individuals, as aforefaid ? And can it be supposed that
the widow and the fatherlefs, the poor and the needy, by them
thus defrauded, perhaps of a bullock, or some bushels of wheat,
individually, but in the whole, amounting to an enormous sum,
can follow them to obtain justice ? How are these plunderers to be
pursued ? And how can any thing be recovered frotn them in a
common court of law ? Especially when we consider that to all
the difficulties already mentioned, inuft be added, that the very
receipts under their own hands would be exhibited as evidence
against the injured, honest, original creditor !
Is not this cafe, as often to be met with as it is, beyond remedy
unless by the interposition of Congrels ? Now as this cafe is not
Dnly unprovided for, in the amendments proposed by the worthy
rentleman from Virginia, but the door seems to be shut against a
future provision ; and considering that the famegentleman, or some
nher, may bring forward fometliing that may reach to the root of
he evil, and produce more effe&ual justice : Under these con
iderrtions, said Mr. Scott, I shall at present vote against the pro
sofition ; but if I am disappointed in my expe&ations, and that
gentleman shall bring his proportions again forward in the hoilfe,
[ shall not suppose my felt' debarred from voting with him.
Mr, Seney rose and observed, that is was with relu£lancc he
ittempted to exprefsto the committee his ideas upon a qaeliion
<vhich had been so fully and ably difcuffcd. However, as it had
aeen expe&ed that gentlemen would not. in a cafe of such mag
litude, becontent with merely a silent vote, he rpfe to declare the
eafons upon which his decision was founded. In doing this, he
loped that he should not use epithets which might be deemed
larfh, or language which would be offenfive : that although the
entiments of other members should differ from his, he wished so
ar to respeCt those sentiments as to treat them with decency.
Heconfidered the proportion of the gentleman from Virginia
Mr. Madison) wasdefigned to efte6l two purposes*
The one, a compensation to the original creditors who, during
he late war, in times of distress, had loaned money, furnifhed
upplns and rendered military services ; and who had only receiv
d fatisfaflion therefor in paper of inconsiderable value, forced on
hem by the public, and depreciated by their a£ts. This class of
reditors, he conceived, had a just and equitable claim for the full
lifference in value between that paper, when paid, and specie.
The other object of the proportion alluded to, was, he said, to
ompenfate thole creditors who now hold alienated certificates.
Each description of those creditors had, in his opinion, claims
>n the public. The fiift was founded on an original contract
>etween them and the government, part of which only had been
:om plied with, and the residue iiill remained undischarged : the
ither was grounded on having polTeflion ot the paper which con
ained the promise to pav.
It hath been contended, said he, that the United St?tes have not
ibility to pay both. In this cafe a question arises, What is, upon
he whole, most just and expedient ? Some gentlemen contend#
hat it is incumbent on us to make full provision for those who
lold the certificates,without any for the original cred tors
vho have alienated them. Others think, that the misfortune of
[overnment, in this respeCt, should not be felt by either class
olely, but be born by both : that it is more just to adopt a mode
>f cowipofition, by which those creditors should mutually (hare in
his misfortune, and be rtiutually benefited by a provision within
>ur power to make. With those his sentiments accorded. He
:ould not V>e impressed with the justice or reason of a measure, cal
ulated to make a total facrifice ot one class of creditors, and full
jayment to the other class. Such a step could not, in his opinion,
>ejuftififd by any diftinttion or precedence which existed in their
laims. When it was considered that the original creditors fur—
lifhed money and supplies, and rendered services eflerittal to the
>reservation of their country, at a time when its liberties were in
aded, and every thing which can be dear to freemen was in
eopardy and at flake, he could not apprehend that their claims
vould be deemed inferior to those of their rivals. In his opinion
hefe circumstances entitled them to fupenor notice. Believing,
towever, that the amendment under consideration would, upon
he whole, effect more fubliantial justice than any other prattica
>le scheme which had been proposed to the committee, or which
ic had heard of, his aflent would therefore be given to it.
He then noticed a variety of objections which had,in the course
( f debate, been urged against the amendment he supported. Gen
lemen, he said, had insisted, that although the principle of it
night be right and proper, yet the execution of the scheme was
ltogether impratticable. They had also contended, that the a
;option of such a proportion would be a violation of those rules
yhich, as to contra&s, ought to be held sacred, and also of the
onftitution under which the government was then acting ; that
t would be disapproved of, even by the persons for whose benefit
he provision was intended.
He observed, that those who admitted the propriety of the
neafure as to the principle, could not be juftified in their oppo
ition upon the ground of impra&icability; that the honorable
nover of the amendment had, in the course of yesterday's debates,
uggefted expedients which would, in his opinion, remove the
;rcater part of the objections which ingenuity had urged in that
efpett : that some particular cases, perhaps, might exist, for
vhich fpeciaJ provilion would be iequifite : however, as that
entleman had declared his belief in the practicability of the ivf
em, such was Mr. Seney's confidence in the sincerity and ab'h
ties Of the person who made the declaration, that he was not dit
to fed to believe the reverse without giving an opportunity of proof,
n until some trial was made. It had been also objeCted, said he,
hat the proposed projeCt is violative of the rules which in con
rafts should ever be preserved : but how, he asked, could gen
lerrten reconcile this objection to the plan which they advocated r
vould it not operate with equal force to condemn that, as well
s every other, which had been contemplated ? The argument,
>y proving too much, ought therefore to have no influence upon
he question. It had also, he said, been mentioned, that the plan
n controversy was a violation ot the constitution, which every
nembw had taken an oath to support. This observation, he re
narked, might be made m terrorem, but could have little weighc
f the words of the constitution, in this respeCt, were attended to ;
hefe are, " all debts contracted, and engagements entered into,
tefore the ad option of the constitution, shall be as valid agamlt the
"nited S;afs under this constitution. as under the confederation :