Mr. Huntington said if the gentleman would
vary his motion, so that the expence fhotild be
incurred by the Staie, he did 1101 know but he
ffiould agree to it. There is one State (said he)
in which every person is obliged to provide him
ieU with arms and accoutrements—and no diffi
culty has resulted from the law—Penalties on
default are exacfted and collected—but this pro
pofit ion will produce great inequalities—it will
excile jealousies and difcoi d between the govern
ments— but if left to the States the officers will
be moreexacftto prevent impolitions on the par
ticular State from which they receive their ap-
pointments
Mr. Parker agreed to alter his motion agreea
ble to Mr. Huntington's idea.
Mr. Boudinot said that there did not appear to
be any neceflity for the amendment, as the bill
makes provision for excepting persons who are
unable to purchal'e arms, in cafe the state legi
slatures chufe t6 make such exceptions.
Mr. Giles said he was opposed to the motion
on principle ; but if that was not the cafe lie
fliould object to it in its present form as it was
not full enough : He did not suppose that it was
intended that the United States should make a
present of the arms thus furniflied—but the mo
tion does not provide for their return, when not
inufe. His principal objection to the motion
however arose from its being an improper inter
ference with the authority of the Itate govern
ments : They may, or may not comply with the
law—lf they fhouldnot, it would prove nugatory
.—and render the authority of the United States,
contemptible. For these reasons, and others
which had been advanced, he thought the amend
ment improper.
Mr. Bloodworth observed that as the militia
was to be organized and disciplined under the
authority of the United States, and to be employ
ed for the general defence, whenever andwhere
ever Congress should diretft, it appeared but rea
sonable that those who were benefited by them,
should be at the expence of arming them.
Mr. Sherman said it appeared to hitn, that by
the Constitution, the United States were to be put
to no expence about the militia, except when
called into actual service. The clause is not so
explicit as might have been wished ; but it will
be difficult to fix the conftrudtion mentioned by
the gentleman from North Carolina. What re
lates to arming and disciplining means nothing
more than a general regulation in refpetfi to the
arms and accoutrements — There are so few free
men i:i the United States who are not able to
provide themselves arms andaccoutrements, that
anyprovifion on the part of the United States is
unneceflary and improper : He had no doubt
that the people if left to themselves would pro
vide such arms as are neceflary, without incon
venience or complaint ; but if they are furnilhed
bythe United States, the public Arsenals would
soon be exhausted—and experience shews, that
public property of this kind, from the careless
manner in which many persons use it, is soon
loft—The expence and inconvenience would, in
liis opinion, far overbalance any good that would
be derived from such a provilion.
Mr. Vining observed, that the greatest objec
tion against the motion is, that it stops short in
the regulation of the business : No provision, it
is said, is made for the return of the arms to the
public—and it gives a discretionary power to the
officers to dispose of the property of tlie United
States ; but he conceived these difficulties were
not beyond the reach of remedies ; the wisdom
of the house, he doubted not, would devifefnch
as were adequate to the objecft. Healkedby what
means minors were to provide tliemfelves with
the requiflte articles ? Many of them are appren
tices : If you put arms into their hands they will
make goodfoldiers ; but how are they to procure
them .' It is said, if they are supplied by the
United States the property will be loft ; if this
is provided against, every objection |may be ob
viated. He then offered an addition to the mo
tion, providing for the return of the arms to the
commanding officer.
The Chairman then stated the motion with the
amendment.
Mr. 'Fucker observed, that the motion in its
jv.efent form, differed from- the original propo
sed by the gentleman from Virginia, fie con
ceived the gentleman had no right to alter it, nor
could it be done without a vote of the committee.
He prefcred the motion in its original ftate—for
the United States may without doubt, furniih the
arms—but he very much qneftioned their right
io call on the individual States to do it.
Mr. Williamfon was in favour of the quefti«n's
being taken with the amendment admitted by
Mr. Parker. He wilhed to know whether Con
gress meant to tax the individual Hates in this
unusual manner. Perhaps as they had aflumed
the Hate debts upon this principle, or rather with
out any principle, they might think they had a
right to call upon them to furnifh quotas in pro
portion, this would be getting Something for
Ibmcthing—and not like the other measure, los
ing Something for noihing.
Mr. Vining said he could not understand what
was meant by faying that the amendment was
dictating to the Kates: What is the whole bill
but dictating—a law that afFcrts every individual,
touches the whole community. With refpecft to
the constitutionality of the measure, there can
be no doubt—every grant of power to Congrels
neceUarily implies a conveyance of every inci
dental power requisite to carry the grant into
effetft. _
Mr. Wadfworth apologized for detaining the
attention of the committee a moment, while he
asked the gentlemen who favored the motion,
what was the extent' of their wi/hes ?—The mo
tion at firft appeared to be in favor of poor men,
who are unable to purchase a firelock ; but now
it seems, minors and apprentices are to be pro
vided for—is there a man in this honfe who would
wiflt to fee so large a proportion, of the commu
nity, perhaps one-third, armed by the United
States, and liable to be disarmed by them ! No
thing would tend more to excite suspicion, and
rouse a jealousy dangerous to the vtnion. With
refpedl to apprentices, every man knew thatthey
were liable to this tax, and they were taken un
der the idea of being provided for by their mas
ters—as to minors, their parents or guardians
would prefer furnifhing thein with arms them
selves, to depending on the United States when
they knew they were liable to having them re
claimed.
The question on Mr. Parker's motion was loft.
On motion of Mr. Heifter, a proviso was added
to the fecftion in the following words—" That
every citizen so enrolled, and providing liimfelf
with the arms and accoutrements required asa
forefaid, {hall hold the fame exempt from all ex
ecutions, or suits for debt, or for the payment of
taxes."
Mr. Fitzfimons moved to strike "out the words
" provide hiinfelf," and insert " shall be pro
vided "
Tliis motion was objected to by Meflrs Boudi
not, Huntington, Jackson, Partridge, Viningand
Madison. It was said that it would be de
ftrucftive of the bill, as it would leave it optional
with the states, or individuals, whether the mi
luia Ihould be armed or not.
This motion was loft by a great majority.—The
second feclion comprizes the characters that are
to be exempted from enrollment or militia duty.
Mr. Madison moved to strike out that part
which related to members of Congress, their of
ficers and servants, attending either house—
and to insert " members of the Senate and house
of Reprelentatives whilst travelling to, attend
ing at, or returning from the feflions of Con
gress. He iaw no reason for a total exempti
on from militia service—exceptions in favor of
the framers of laws ought notto be extended be
yond what is evidently neceflary.—The members
of Congress during the recess are at liberty to
pursue their ordinary avocations, and may parti
cipate in the duties and exercises of their fellow
citizens. —They ought to bear a part in the bur
dens they lay on others, which may check an
abufeof the powers with which they arevefted.
Mr. Jackson observed that this alteration might
interfere with the public intereil—in cases of
alarm or invasion, the members might be cal
led to a great distance in the militia at the mo
ment when their presence was required to attend
the session of the legislature. It would be well
therefore to consider whether their Cervices in the
militia would be of equal importance to the pub
lic /ntereft, as their services in Congress.
Mr. Boudinot objected to the amendment—not
thatlie would exempt Members of Congress from
burdens imposed 011 their fellow-citizens—but the
motion he conceived was inconsistent with this
very idea. The bill provides that exempts ihall
pay a certain equivalent ; it would be unjust to
impose this equivalent, and compel the Members
to turn out in the militia. He con
cluded by faying that he conceived the indepen
dence of the leigiflature was connected with this
exemption.
Mr. Wadfworth said that he thought there was
no neceflity to exempt Members of Congress : It
the Conititution did not grant them such a pri
vilege, he doubted whether rhey could afTunie it
by an a<ft of tlieir own : He was therefore for leav
ing this matter to the discretion ofthe (laic lefi
flaiures—llo inconvenience would result if this was
done.
Mr. Hartley was in favor of the exemptions'
being fpecified by ast of Congress ; and he con
ceived they had the plainest directions to follow,
in the univerl'al practice of all the (late legislatures
■ —and this practice was founded in the reason of
things, the incompatibility of the duties ; they
are diltindt in their natures, and cannot be exer
cifed together.
Mr. Maddifon fupportedliis motion, he con
sidered it as important that the governors and
the governed should feel their mutual relation to
each other ; on this principle he thought that 110
exemption ihould be allowed, except in cases
where an attendcnce on militia duty, was incom
patible with the performance of other duties ;
tor these reasons he wished that the whole clause
fhoukl be struck oat—in cases of difficulty a court
678
martial would be competent to doing justice t«
the parties.
Mr. Giles followed Mr. Madison in a similar
train of reafoningin refped to rulers fympathiz»
ing with the ruled in all public burthens ; he
adverted to the diflerent plans of organizing the
militia which had been contemplated by the
committee, and the reasons which,induced them
to adopt that in the bill ; with refped: to the
plan of fele<fting particular classes to form a mi
litia, it could not in liis opinion be done, but by
inliftments, which was a mode that the freemen
of America revolted from. He laid that no insu
perable difficulties would result from rendering
all liable to be called upon. Should the clause be
struck MUt, the equivalent mentioned in another
part of the bill will be unnecellary, and the arti
cle may be expunged. He concluded by faying,
that if it was thought proper that the Members
ofCongrefs fliouldbe exempted, it would be best
that the exemptions fliould be made by the Itate
legislatures.
Mr. Sherman faidit was the practice of the se
veral States to exempt their own legislatures, and
the other descriptions of persons mentioned in thp
clause : He conceived a feat in the federal legi
slature, would equally entitle to an exemption :
He was opposed to the amendment, tho he would
agree to ltrike out the whole, and leave the busi
ness to the state legislatures.
Mr. Jackson obierved that leaving the exemp
tions from militia duty, to the discretion of the
Hate legillatures might be productive ofgreat in
equalities; besides it would not comport with the
idea of the bill in the grand object of uniformi
ty : Some states might make great exceptions,
others none at all—this would make the burthen
very unequal on the whole, which would be pal
pably unjust.—The example of the itate legifla
turesisfuriicient said he to (hew that some exemp
tions are agreeable to the ideas of the people—&
the independence of the legislature being eflenti
ally concerned leave 110 room to doubt the pro
priety of the nieafure—he informed the commit
tee that when they came to the clause fpecifyin*
the sum proposed as an equivalent for personal
service, he should move for an alteration.
Mr. Hartley observed that the conftituiion de
clares that the persons of members lliall be privi
leged from arrest during their attendance on
Congress—in going to and returning from the
feflion ; with a Ipecial reference to the independ
ence of the legiflature —he conceived that iE
would counteract the spirit of the cojiltitution to
render the members liable to be called on to dis
charge duties incompatible in,' their nature —on
this principle alio it would be in the power ef a
designing president, ftiouldfucha character ever
be eletfted, to prevent the members aflenibling
by calling out individuals to attend military
duties at the moment when their attendance
would be neceflary in Congress.—The ilates in
dividually, as well as the parliament of Great-
Britain have set us a good example in this refpedt.
Mr. Boudinot, agreed in sentiment with Mr.
Hartley, that the independence of the members
was an important objedt.—The ideas of the gen
tlemen from Virginia [Mr. Madison and Mr.
Giles] that legislators ought to participate in the
burthens imposed on others, ought never to be
loft fight of—but in the present inltance, the
doctrine would be carried into pracftice—for at the
end of every two years, the Members would re
vert to the mass of citizens, and feel in common
with others the influence of the laws.—The busi
ness of legislation is more arduous and momen
tous than any other—and ought not to be impe
ded, or rendered liable to be fruftrated by any
other. This he thought would be the cafe by
adopting the amendment.
Mr. Madison supposed nothing would be risked
by tilt amendment, as the Constitution had fuffi
ciently secured the independence of the members
—He had not anticipated so much debate on the
motion—He was fatisfied in his own mind of its
propriety—The poflible cases which had been sta
ted, did not in his opinion juftify the violation
of the great principle he had mentioned ; but to
fimplify thequeftion he would withdraw his mo
tion, so far as only to propose to strike out from
the exemptions, " the members ofCongrefs."
Mr. Tucker said that it appeared to him that
foine general ideas on the fubje(ft of exemptions
should be incorporated in the bill. If the com
mittee descend to particulars they will find it ex
tremely difficult to make such diftincftions as are
proper. He was opposed to leaving the exemp
tions to be made by the state governments —It
might create difficulties, as some States inighi
exempt their members, and others might not—
These partial exemptions would be attended with
great inconveniences ; the Members may be ne
ceflarily engaged in making their arrangements
to attend their duty in Congress, previous to the
time of setting out for the feat of government,
and be interrupted by being called to the field to
attend militia duty. The number of persons it
will be found eligible to exempt, will not be so
great,as to render the defence of the United States,
precarious for want of their personal services iu
j ihe militia, He concluded by observing that the