A NATIONAL PAPER, PUBLISHED WEDNESDAYS AND SATURDAYS BY JOHN FENNO, No. 34, NOPTH FIFTH-STREET, PHILADtLPH!A
[No. 85 of Vol. IV.]
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, March l.
In committee of the whole, Mr. Muhlenberg
in the chair, on the 3d, 4th, sth, 6th, 7th,
and Btb resolutions, refpefting the official
conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury,
tor which fee Gazette of the 6th ir.lt.
MR. MERGER. None of the communi
cations from filte Secretary of the Tie a
fury, he said, had removed his fnfplcions re
lative to the tranfa£lionsefthat department;
Xvrhat had fallen ill the course of the diffcuffion
tiad not removed his doubts. He> confefied
liimfelf niore at a loss than ever to account
for the conciuft of that officer. To judge of
the propriety of his conduct, it was neceifary
ta conftder what his duties are, and inyefti
gate-whether a necessity exiflc-d tojuftify the
drawing complained of. Gentlemen In their
arguments had alluded to (bine obleryations
(hat had fallen from him 00 other occaficms
expressive ol'liis opinion—that tbere had been
•corruption ip that department. This opinion
he ftiil entertained—He fuggafej that fbtne
irregularities had, he belifcved, taken place as
to the money appropriated to the linking
fund. This might l>e tlie fact, a-nd his sus
picions were Sufficiently urgent to warrant
him in suggesting, that it might be possible.
At the close of ninety-two he slated there was
a balance of calh in the treasury of 2,331,182
dollar ; and the bonds due in the course of
the prelent year would produce a sum of a
bout 2,269,000 dollars—Yet a proposition
was made 111 the House, predicated on a total
want of money in the treaftiry, to borrow
800,000 dollars in addition to the 400,000 al
re'Jfly borrowed of the bank.
Here Mr. Boudinot interrupted the mem
ber, as beiiuT out of order.
Trie Chairman, conceiving Mr. Mercer's
remarks to We mtroduftory to, and connected
with t:ie observations he intended to make
on the rrfoiution, declared him iu order.
Mr. Mercer proceeded to shew, by sundry
ftarements and calculations, that there was
no ncceflity for this loan of 800,000 dollars.
The House, he laid, to discharge their duty,
Ihould be bow the supftey appropri
ated was applied, before they contented to re
peated additional appropriations. When calls
for information had been made by the House,
with a view to comply with this their indif-
P+nlible duty, the Secretary had thought it
Sufficient to balance money actually received,
by calculations of fuins that would probably
be wanted agreeably to appropriations—>—
Were dollars, he asked, to be balanced by ob
solete appropriations ? can things certain be
balanced by things Uncertain ?«—Aftual ex
penditure would alone balance actual receipt.
-Appropriations founded only on uncertain
calculations could not shew the money actu
ally laid out. He adverted to foine calcula
tions made to ascertain the probable expen
ses of the war department.
Here the member was again called to or
der, and was declared out of order by the
Chairman.
Mr. Mercer confined his obrervations more
immediately to the resolution before the
committee. It had been said that the inter
est paid was paid out of monies that were to
be drawn to this country, and were replaced
Here by funds from the domestic refourccs
originally appropriated for that object, and
that the dead letter of the law, if any part
of it, had alone been violated. He conteud
cd there had been an elfential violation.
The sums drawn for and appropriated to.
reduce the public debt, were not applied to
that purpose ; the domestic resources appro
priated to that obje&} never were exhaufied.
if this is the cafe, conclusions surely unfa
vorable to that officer must naturally follow.
He proceeded to make some remarks on
the question, whether the Secretary had act
ed under inftrudtions from the President. It
was disagreeable, he premised, to criminate
Ihe character of any officer. He bore a great
re pest for the President, for his virtues* ta
lents, and services, but however grating to
ins feelings it might be to find fault with any
part erf his conduct in this business, he was
unable to discharge his duty Under his present
lrnpreUions, unless he avowed that he con
ceived that officer had violated the law,
though he allowed, without intention, by not
ciiquiiing into the business, while tranfafting,
was his duty to do. He imift declare
»at he saw no proof that the Secretary Had
•«ed under the President's mftißttions ; on
tne contrary he saw the reverse, there was
•veil no preemptive proof of the atf.—'The
House bad called for information as to the
Extent of the authority delegated in the bufi
tvefs by the President to the Secretary. Ei
ther the Secretary has produced the proof of
this authority, or he has not complied with
he order of the House j—it does appear that
ne has gone beyond it in making the drafts
complained of. The President dire&ed that
t e proceeds of the loan be immediately ap
¥ 'ed to pay the French; yet a £reat portion
Saturday, March 16, 1793.
of that money was brought over here, It
was said, that he might have brought the.
whole here, it" he chose, and paid it to the
French here. This argument goes o» the
preemption, he observed, that the Prcfident
might do wrong without incurring blame.
But the Preftdent expressly dire&ed. it to be
paid immediately to France ; and tile Houfeii
had np right toprefume that he did direct the!/
money to be drawn here, when proof to the'
contrary appears. Upon the whole, he con-,
eluded that the law had been broken in letter
and substance, and that the Secretary had,<
acted without proper infti uftimis from the
President.
Mr. Liverfnore dWerved, that the charges
againfl the tieafury department were at firll
well calculated to beget feripus alarm. When
misapplications of the public money arefouud
ed in the public ear, atl feel interested, know
ing, that what *ffe<fts the public purse, mv)ft
In a degree atfeft the purses of each private
individual. In the prelent stage of tbe bufj
nefs, he was happy in being able to felicitate
himfelf and his fellow-citiaens, that even
should the whole of til? charges contained in
the reCblutions be proved, it would qot ap
pear that they had loft a farthing by the bu
siness Co loudly complained of. What is the
charge? That the Secretary has paid an in
terest that was juflly due ; why then, he pre
sumed, we should not have it again to pay.
If the Secretary has paid what was due, what
then U the complaint ? It was Purely not in
tended, that it Ihould not have been paid.
This was not the intention of Congress j for
they palfed an ast providing funds for its pay
ment ; the Secretary was then rignt to pay
it. But it is said, he paid it With the wrong
money; he law no harm in not paying it with
the very dollars appropriated, and approved
of the operation, which, saved drawing with
the one hand and remitting witn the other j
in this there was no crime committed, no
loss incurred. It appears, on the contrary,
that Something was gained by it: So Far then,
he was clear, no law had been violated, nor
was any rule of propriety departed from—
He then touched upon the Secretary's dis
puted right to draw. He contended, that he
had that right. The loans were obtained
under the joint authority of the two acts.
It vu fakl that more than two millions, tlie
amount appropriated for the finking fund,
were drawn over ; but, he infilled, he might
have drawn the other twelve millions, if it
had been for the public interest so to do.
The French wished to be paid here, and it be
ing no loss, rather a profit to comply with
their wifb, where was the harm io So doing i
If any public loss had been incurred owing to
these drafts, then blame would lie. He con
cluded, by expreffiug his hearty approbation
of the conduct of the officer who is crimina
ted by the refolu'ions, and declared it as his
firm intention to give them Iris negative.
Mr. Smith regretted that so important an
enquiry had been instituted at the very clo e
of the fefHbn, when the members were throng
ed with business of an indispensable nature,
and it was scarcely poilible for them to beftovr
that attention and deliberation, which the na
ture of the business called for. But, while he
expressed this regret, he aflured the commit
tee that it was mingled with mu£h fatisfafti
on in finding that the vague charges of mis
management, with which the public had long
been alarmed, were at length cast into a shape,
susceptible of investigation and decifiom
Previous to an examination of the fpeclfic
charge then under «onfideration, he clainicd
the indulgence of the committee, in ottering
a few preliminary remarks, which, though
they did not bear precisely iijoii the charge
itfelf, yet were intimately connected with
the fubjea-matter of the enquiry, and were
juftified by thegeueral remarks of gentlemen,
who had preceded liirn.
In recurring bsck to the origin and progress
of this examination, be said, it must appear
somewhat surprising, that that, which, in the
commencement of the felfion, was founded
forth as gross speculation, now turnec 1 out to
be nothing more than a mere substitution of
funds, and that that which was announced as
abominable corruption, was dwindled away
into a mere drawing of money from Europe
into this country, to be applied here accord
ing to law.
Whatever credit might be due to the mo*
tives which had originated this enquiry,every
member would concur in the sentiment, that
in a government constituted like that of the
United Stater., wfiich had nothing but the pub
lic confidence for its basis, premature alarms
and groundless iufoicions refpe&'ng the con
due* of public officers, were pregnant with
the most injurious con frequences.
This opinion was more peculiarly applica
ble to the important flation of the Secretary
of the Treafuvy. En tr lifted with the ma
nagement of a large revenue, and necefTarily
cloathed with some latitude of difipretion, it
was to be expe&ed that he would excite the
jealousy of the public vigilance ; but as long
as he kept in view the injunctions of law, and
the public good, his reputation was entitled
to that'fecurity which is due to every citizen.
329
inoficer, entrusted with the tare and dif
tribtirion of public monies, is generally looked
aewitb a Watchful eye; mankind are too
p« one to fufpe<ft the purity of his conduct J
flight insinuations are but too- often fuflicient
to injure him in the public eftiination. Such
being the natural propensity of things it
doubt ess behoved thole who wi'flied for tran
quility In the country, to withhold
not clearly warranted by proof—to suspend
animadversions which were not likely to ter
minate in convi&ion. A contrary proceed
ing had an inevitable tendency nnnecelfarily
to alarm the public mind-, to inlt 1 into it i\i(-
picions agkirtft the integrity of men in high
stations—to weaken their public confidence
in the government, and to enervate its opera
tions.
There wan something remarkable in the
nature of the present allegations against the
Secretary; taking them all into view, they
presented nothing which involved leli-inter
efted pecuniary considerations ; and in this,
they essentially differed from accusations a
gainst financiers in other countries, to whom
motives of interell were generally ascribed
tb*fource of their peculations. T<> s he
Secretary no such motive was imputed ; not
withstanding former inlinnations againlt his
integrity, the Jum of all the chargcs now a
moimted to nothing more than arrogance, or
an aflumptioii of power, or an exercile of un
authorised discretion.
With refpeft to discretion, Mr. Smith ob
served, that though in the present enquiry it
was not neceflary to fay much on that topic,
being firmly persuaded the Secretary had
ftri&ly pursued the injunctions of law, yet,
while on the fubjedf, he took occasion to in
sist that in all governments a latitude was
implied in executive officers, where that diP»
creation resulted from the nature of the office,
or was in purltiance of general authority de
legated by law. This principle was so obvi
ous that it required no illustration ; were it
contraditted, he tvould appeal to the conduct
of the Secretary of State, who, though direct
ed to report to the Houfb on the commercial
intercoutte with foreign nations, had, in the
exercise of a Warrantable discretion judicious
ly withheld his report : lie would appeal to
the report of the committee on the failure of
St. Cifiir's expedition, tv herein that failure
was in pare attributed to the commanding ge
neral's not being inverted with a discretion to
ast according to circumstances.
There was one more observation which he
thought proper to preijiife before he entered
into a difcufiion of the charges ; and that
was the diladvantageous lituation in which
the financier of this country was placed,when
compared with that of fimiiar officers in other
nations. TheminiHerof finance in Great-
Britain being always a member of the !egifla
ture and on a footing with other members,
was prepared to defend himfelf when attack
ed » no charge could be made his ad
ministration, which he had not an immediate
opportunity of and the charge and
the refutation went out to the A?orld toge
ther. The Secretary of the Treasury was on
the contrary not even permitted to come to
the and to vindicate himlelf* Through
the imperfedt medium of written reports he
was compelled, when called upon for informa
tf6n, to anfwerj as it were, by anticipation,
charges whif:h were not fpecific, without
JcHowfng pretifely agaiuft what part of his ad
ministration fubfeqnent fpecilic clmfges would
be Wought to bear.
If in his reports he Wastdtjcife* he was cen
sured for fuppreffirig information Jif he en
tered into a vindication of the motives which
influenced his qonduft, he Vas then criminat
ed for fluffing his reports With metaphyseal
reafb:rings. A gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Findley) had said that the Secretary's
repots were so voluminous that he Was quite
bewildered by them, and that instead of their
throwing any light on the fubjett, he was
more in the dark than ever. It is truej the
repdtts were voluminous, but not more so
than the imputations on the Secretary's con
duct, and the ciders of the House juftifieck
He did not think that any member who had
attentively perused thein, could juftlV com
plain of want of information, or of being more
in the dark than before i he on the contrary
believed, that so much light had been thrown
on the whole of the Secretary's si cal operati
ons, that if any member Could not fee it piuit
be owing to the glare of light being too itrong
for Ins eyes,
Harirg made tbst obfbrvations,Mr. Smith
said he ffiould proceed to examine tlie fii ft
charge, which, after much reßeftion bellowed
upon it, afrpearcd to him to contain nothing
that was not autborifid by tl»e ltridt krtter oi
the law.
Mr. Smith, in his examination of the charge
inder conlideration, observed that it collid
ed* of two items : the firfl, ihe application
of a certain portion of the p'. incipalfum bor
rowed in Europe, to the payment of the in
terest falling due upon that principal, which
it was contended was nor authorifeJ by any
law} Hialecoud, The draw«g ;art of the
[Whole No. 40 5.]
fame monies into the United States* without
the inftradHoiis of the Pieiident.
Th«f drit item of i hi* luppofed violation of
law appeared ot so frivrffout a nature* that it
did oot merit much difmfiioo ; at any rate, it
was more an objeßi6ii ot form than ot f'ubttance.
It he comprehended well the purpott Ot the
charge, it was nothing more thin this—that the
fccietafy, having tnmiiei at his disposal in tu
rope applicable to the purchase of Hock in tin*
country, and having at the lame wine monies in
this coUntry applitable to the payment of the
mteteit abroad, had fubflituted the one tor the
Other; he had paid the tortrigri inteieft out of
the foreign funds, and he had purchased (lock
with the domeftie funds.— ThiJ was iht
heinous crime with which he waa charged*
and which was thought tufHcient to re
move him from office ! If the money in
V Europe might have beeu drawn to this
country by biHs, for the purchase of the
debt, it injght hpvb equally been
here, by ordering the application,of a lunj.
there (in Europe) fi?i a purpose which
would be represented by an equal fori*
here, to be applied to the purchase. The
substance, not the form, i»to decide whe
ther this mode of negociating the bufincts
Wast proper. Suppose bills had been or
dered to be drawn on the comroiflioners,
and remitted to them, on account of the
foreign interelt, would not this hav.e l)e<fi>
as regular as to draw them for sale? Did
the execution of the law require, that tl>e
secretary, having funds in Europe, with
which the foreign interest might be disc
charged, should neverthelefe remit monies
abroad for that put pose, and then, having
funds in this country, with which the pur
chases of the debt might be made, should
draw bills to bring the foreign funds here/
Was there any necessity foj this complex
operation, for the expence of remittance
the probable loss on the sale of bills, the
loss of interelt while the money was in
tranfitu, when the whole business could be
negociated by limple and (Economical
tnode puvfued ? So fat from this arrange
ment beir.g a ground of cenfufe, Mr.
Smith alerted that, had the fecretaty
pursued the other mode, he would have
been animadverted Upon with great seve
rity, for such an absurd and eXpeufivc
operation ; (re would have been accused us
ignorance of his dqty, and every loss in
cidental to the tranfa&ion would have
been charged to his account.
The fecoild divilion of the charge, btf
ing of more magnitude, requited a mofe
lengthy difcuffiom This instance of vio*
lation confided in a supposed deviation
from the inductions of the Prefitjent, of
a supposed aftiag without any inftru&iotf
whatever. It was, however, begging thi
queition j it was taking for granted that
which did not appear, and which ought
not to be presumed, And here Mr. Smith
observed, the gentlemen on the other fide
had entitely reversed one of the funda
mental maxims of criminal jurisprudence,
which declared that innocenct should be
presumed, and guilt proved ; wherta>
they had presumed guilt, and called uport
the accused to piove hi* innocence.
And what Was the slender bafts on
which the presumption was built ?
fay the gentlemen, the inftrudlions from
the Prtfident to the Becietary, which
have been laid before the houie, relate
only to the payment of the French dibt«
and convey no authority to draw any of
the foreign loan into this country for the
purchase of (lock, and hence they infer,
he had no authority for this latter pur
pose.
To comprehend the fallacy of the in
ference, it was only neceflary to recur to
the laws, and to the Prtfidei.t'scommilfi
on to thrf fecrttary to negociate the loanFj
Two aAsof Congress had palled j one
the 4th of Abgutl, the other the 12th
Augufl, 1790. The fitit authorised a
loan of 12 millions of dollars, applicable
to the payment of the French debt; the
other a loan of 2 millions, applicable to
the purchase of the domeftie debt. The
Piefident's commiflion to the secretary
embraced both acts and both objtdis, and
under that commiliion one loan was nego
ciated applicable to both objedts. True
it is thai the Prelident's firit inftru&iona