Debates in the Several State Conventions/Volume 5/Congress Apr. 1783

by Jonathan Elliot

Layout 4

 

Tuesday, April 1.

Mr. GORH AM called for the order of the day—to wit, the report on revenue, &c., and observed, as a cogent reason for hastening that business, that the Eastern States, at the invitation of the legislature of Massachusetts, were, with New York, about to form a convention for regulating matters of common concern, and that if any plan should be sent out by Congress during their session, they would probably coöperate with Congress in giving effect to it.

Mr. MERCER expressed great disquietude at this information; considered it as a dangerous precedent; and that it behooved the gentleman to explain fully the objects of the convention, as it would be necessary for the Southern States to be, otherwise, very circumspect in agreeing to any plans, on a supposition that the general confederacy was to continue.

Mr. OSGOOD said, that the sole object was to guard against an interference of taxes among states whose local situation required such precautions; and that if nothing was definitively concluded without the previous communication to, and sanction of, Congress, the Confederation could not be said to be in any manner departed from; but that, in fact, nothing was intended that could be drawn within the purview of the Federal Articles.

Mr. BLAND said, he had always considered those conventions as improper, and contravening the spirit of the federal government. He said, they had the appearance of young Congresses.

Mr. GORHAM explains as Mr. Osgood.

Mr. MADISON and Mr. HAMILTON disapproved of these partial conventions, not as absolute violations of the Confederacy, but as ultimately leading to them, and, in the mean time, exciting pernicious jealousies; the latter observing that he wished, instead of them, to see a general convention take place, and that he should soon, in pursuance of instructions from his constituents, propose to Congress a plan for that purpose; the object would be to strengthen the Federal Constitution.

Mr. WHITE informed Congress that New Hampshire had declined to accede to the plan of a convention on foot.

Mr. HIGGINSON said, that no gentleman need be alarmed at any rate, for it was pretty certain that the convention would not take place. He wished, with Mr. Hamilton, to see a general convention for the purpose of revising and amending the federal government.²⁴

These observations having put an end to the subject. Congress resumed the report on revenue, &c. Mr. HAMILTON, who had been absent when the last question was taken for substituting numbers in place of the value of land, moved to reconsider that vote. He was seconded by Mr. OSGOOD. (See the Journal.) Those who voted differently from their former votes were influenced by the conviction of the necessity of the change, and despair on both sides of a more favorable rate of the slaves. The rate of three fifths was agreed to without opposition. On a preliminary question, the apportionment of the sum, and revision of the same, was referred to the grand committee.

The report as to the resignation of foreign ministers was taken up, and in the case of Mr. Jefferson, his mission was dispensed with; Mr. Dana's intimated return to America was approved of, unless engaged in a negotiation with the court of St. Petersburg. (See the Journal.) The eastern delegates were averse to doing any thing as to Mr. Adams until further advices should be received. Mr. Laurens was indulged, not without some opposition. The acceptance of his resignation was particularly enforced by Mr. IZARD.

Wednesday, April 2, Thursday, April 3, Friday, April 4, Saturday, April 5.

See Journals.

The grand committee appointed to consider the proportions for the blanks in the report on revenue, &c., reported the following, grounded on the number of inhabitants in each state; observing that New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Maryland, had produced authentic documents of their numbers; and that, in fixing the numbers of other states, they had been governed by such information as they could obtain. They also reduced the interest of the aggregate debt to two millions and a half.

	Number of Inhabitants.			Proportions of one thousand.			Proportions of one and a half millions.
New Hampshire,		82,200			35			52,500
Massachusetts,		350,000			148			222,000
Rhode Island,		50,400			21			31,500
Connecticut,		206,000			87			130,500
New York,		200,000			85			127,500
New Jersey,		130,000			55			82,500
Pennsylvania,		320,000			136			204,000
Delaware,		35,000			15			22,500
Maryland,		220,700			94			141,000
Virginia,		400,000			169			253,500
North Carolina,		108,000			72			204,000
South Carolina,		108,000			72			204,000
Georgia,		25,000			11			16,500
		2,359,300			1,000			1,500,000	annual
interest of debt, after deducting 1,000,000 of dollars, expected from impost on trade.

A committee, consisting of Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Ellsworth, was appointed to report the proper arrangements to be taken in consequence of peace. The object was to provide a system for foreign affairs, for Indian affairs, for military and naval establishments; and also to carry into execution the regulation of weights and measures, and other articles of the Confederation not attended to during the war. To the same committee was referred a resolution of the executive council of Pennsylvania, requesting the delegates of that state to urge Congress to establish a general peace with the Indians.²⁵

Monday, April 7.

The sense of Congress having been taken on the truth of the numbers reported by the grand committee, the number allotted to South Carolina was reduced to 150,000, on the representation of the delegates of that state. The delegations of New Jersey contended also for a reduction, but were unsuccessful;—those of Virginia also, on the principle that Congress ought not to depart from the relative numbers given in 1775, without being required by actual returns, which had not been obtained, either from that state or others, whose relation would be varied. To this reasoning were opposed the verbal and credible information received from different persons, and particularly Mr. Mercer, which made the number of inhabitants in Virginia, after deducting two fifths of the slaves, exceed the number allotted to that state. Congress were almost unanimous against the reduction. A motion was made by Mr. GERVAIS, seconded by Mr. MADISON, to reduce the number of Georgia to 15,000, on the probability that their real number did not exceed it, and the cruelty of overloading a state which had been so much torn and exhausted by the war. The motion met with little support, and was almost unanimously negatived.

A letter was read from General Washington, expressing the joy of the army at the signing of the general preliminaries notified to him, and their satisfaction at the commutation of half-pay agreed to by Congress.²⁶

Tuesday, April 8.

Estimate of the debt of the United States, reported by the grand committee,

FOREIGN DEBT.
To the farmers general of France,	Livres	1,000,000
To Beaumarchois,		3,000,000
To the king of France, to the end of 1782,		28,000,000
To the same for 1783,		6,000,000
		38,000,000	=	$7,037,037
Received on loan in Holland, 1,678,000 florins,				671,200
Borrowed in Spain, by Mr. Jay,				150,000
Interest on Dutch debt, one year, at four per cent.,				26,848
Total foreign debt,				$7,885,085
Total foreign debt,				$7,885,086
DOMESTIC DEBT.
Loan office,			$11,463,802
Interest unpaid for 1781,			190,000
"" 1782,			687,828
Credit to sundry persons on treasury books,			638,042
Army debt to December 31, 1782,			5,635,618
Unliquidated debt,			8,000,000
Deficiencies in 1783,			2,000,000
Total domestic debt,				$28,615,290
Aggregate debt,				$36,500,375
INTEREST.
On foreign debt, 7,885,085, at four per cent.,				$315,403
On domestic debt, 28,615,290, at six per cent.,				1,716,917
On commutation of half-pay, estimated at 5,000,000, at six per cent.,				300,000
Bounty to be paid, estimated at 500,000, at six per cent.,				30,000
Aggregate of interest,				$2,362,320

A motion was made by Mr. HAMILTON, who had been absent on the question on the ninth paragraph of the report on revenue assessing quotas, to reconsider the same. Mr. FLOYD, who, being the only delegate from New York then present on that question, could not vote, seconded the motion. For the arguments repeated, see the former remarks, on the 7th of April.

On the question the votes were—Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New York, ay; New Jersey, ay; Pennsylvania, ay; Maryland, no; Virginia, ay; South Carolina, no.²⁷

Wednesday, April 9.

A memorial was received from General Hazen in behalf of the Canadians who had engaged in the cause of the United States, praying that a tract of vacant land on Lake Erie might be allotted to them.

Mr. WILSON, thereupon, moved that a committee be appointed to consider and report to Congress the measures proper to be taken with respect to the western country. In support of his motion, he observed on the importance of that country; the danger, from immediate emigrations, of its being lost to the public; and the necessity, on the part of Congress, of taking care of the federal interests in the formation of new states.

Mr. MADISON observed, that the appointment of such a committee could not be necessary at this juncture, and might be injurious; that Congress were about to take, in the report on revenue, &c., the only step that could now be properly taken, viz., to call again on the states claiming the western territory to cede the same; that, until the result should be known, every thing would be premature, and would excite in the states irritations and jealousies that might frustrate the cessions; that it was indispensable to obtain these cessions, in order to compromise the disputes, and to derive advantage from the territory to the United States; that, if the motion meant merely to prevent irregular settlements, the recommendation to that effect ought to be made to the states; that, if ascertaining and disposing of garrisons proper to be kept up in that country was the object, it was already in the hands of the committee 'on peace arrangements, but might be expressly referred to them.

Mr. MERCER supported the same idea.

Mr. CLARK considered the motion as nowise connected with the peace arrangements; his object was to define the western limits of the states, which Congress alone could do, and which it was necessary they should do, in order to know what territory properly belonged to the United States, and what steps ought to be taken relative to it. He disapproved of repeatedly courting the states to make cessions which Congress stood in no need of.

Mr. WILSON seemed to consider, as the property of the United States, all territory over which particular states had not exercised jurisdiction, particularly northwest of the Ohio; and said, that within the country confirmed to the United States by the provisional articles, there must be a large country over which no particular claims extended.

He was answered, that the exercise of jurisdiction was not the criterion of territorial rights of the states; that Pennsylvania had maintained always a contrary doctrine; that, if it were a criterion, Virginia had exercised jurisdiction over the Illinois and other places conquered north-west of the Ohio; that it was uncertain whether the limits of the United States, as fixed by the provisional articles, did comprehend any territory out of the claims of the individual states; that, should it be the case, a decision or examination of the point had best be put off till it should be seen whether cessions of the states would not render it unnecessary; that it could not be immediately necessary for the purpose of preventing settlements on such extra lands, since they must be too remote to be in danger of it Congress refused to refer the motion to the committee on peace arrangements, and by a large majority referred it to a special committee, viz., Messrs. Osgood, Wilson, Madison, Carroll, and Williamson; to whom was also referred the memorial of General Hazen.

On the preceding question, Connecticut was strenuous in favor of Mr. Wilson's motion.

A motion was made by Mr. DYER to strike out the drawback on salt fish, &c. Mr. GORHAM protested in the most solemn manner that Massachusetts would never accede to the plan without the drawback The motion was very little supported.

Thursday, April 10.

Letters were received from General Carleton and Admiral Digby, enclosing the British proclamation of the cessation of arms, and also letters from Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams, notifying the conclusion of preliminaries between Great Britain, and France, and Spain, with a declaration entered into with Mr. Fitzherbert, applying the epochs of cessation to the case of Great Britain and the United States. These papers were referred to the secretary of foreign affairs, to report a proclamation for Congress at six o'clock; at which time Congress met, and received the report nearly as it stands on the Journal of Friday, April 11. After some consideration of the report, as to the accuracy and propriety of which a diversity of sentiments prevailed, they postponed it till next day. The secretary also reported a resolution directing the secretary at war and agent of marine to discharge all prisoners of war.

Friday, April 11.

This day was spent in discussing the proclamation, which passed. Mr. WILSON proposed an abbreviation of it, which was disagreed to. The difficulties attending it were—first, the agreement of our ministers with Fitzherbert, that the epochs with Spain as well as France should be applied to the United States, to be computed from the ratifications, which happened at different times—the former on the 3d, the latter on the 9th of February; second, the circumstance of the epochs having passed at which the cessation of hostilities was to be enjoined. The impatience of Congress did not admit of proper attention to these and some other points of the proclamation, particularly the authoritative style of enjoining an observance on the United States, the governors, &c. It was against these absurdities and improprieties that the solitary no of Mr. Mercer was pointed. See the Journal.²⁸

Saturday, April 12.

A letter of the 16th of December, O.S., was received from Mr. Dana, in which he intimates that, in consequence of the news of peace taking place, and independence being acknowledged by Great Britain, he expected soon to take his proper station at the court of St. Petersburg, and to be engaged in forming a commercial treaty with her imperial majesty.

Mr. MADISON observed, that, as no powers or instructions had been given to Mr. Dana relative to a treaty of commerce, he apprehended there must be some mistake on the part of Mr. Dana; that it would be proper to inquire into the matter, and let him know the intentions of Congress on this subject. The letter was committed to Mr. Madison, Mr. Gorham, and Mr. Fitzsimmons.

Mr. RUTLEDGE observed, that, as the instructions to foreign ministers now stood, it was conceived they had no powers for commercial stipulations, other than such as might be comprehended in a definitive treaty of peace with Great Britain. He said, he did not pretend to commercial knowledge, but that it would be well for the United States to enter into commercial treaties with all nations, and particularly with Great Britain. He moved, therefore, that the committee should be instructed to prepare a general report for that purpose.

Mr. MADISON and Mr. FITZSIMMONS thought it would be proper to be very circumspect in fettering our trade with stipulations to foreigners; that as our stipulations would extend to all the possessions of the United States necessarily, but those of foreign nations having colonies to part of their possessions only, and as the most favored nations enjoyed greater privileges in the United States than elsewhere, the United States gave an advantage in treaties on this subject; and, finally, that negotiations ought to be carried on here, or our ministers directed to conclude nothing without previously reporting every thing for the sanction of Congress. It was at length agreed, that the committee should report the general state of instructions existing on the subject of commercial treaties.

Congress took into consideration the report of the secretary of foreign affairs for immediately setting at liberty all the prisoners of war, and ratifying the provisional articles. Several members were extremely urgent on this point, from motives of economy. Others doubted whether Congress were bound thereto, and, if not bounds whether it would be proper. The first question depended on the import of the provisional articles, which were very differently interpreted by different members. After much discussion, from which a general opinion arose of extreme inaccuracy and ambiguity as to the force of these articles, the business was committed to Mr. Madison, Mr. Peters, and Mr. Hamilton, who were also to report on the expediency of ratifying the said articles immediately.²⁹

Monday, April 14.

The committee, on the report of the secretary of foreign affairs, reported as follows—Mr. Hamilton dissenting.^[1]

First. That it does not appear that Congress are any wise bound to go into the ratification proposed. "The treaty" of which a ratification is to take place, as mentioned in the sixth of the provisional articles, is described in the title of those articles to be "a treaty of peace, proposed to be concluded between the crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which is not to be concluded until terms of peace shall be agreed upon between Great Britain and France." The act to be ratified, therefore, is not the provisional articles themselves, but an act distinct, future, and even contingent. Again, although the declaratory act entered into on the 20th of January last, between the American and British plenipotentiaries, relative to a cessation of hostilities, seems to consider the contingency on which the provisional articles were suspended as having taken place, and that act cannot itself be considered as the "treaty of peace meant to be concluded;" nor does it stipulate that either the provisional articles, or the act itself, should be ratified in America; it only engages that the United States shall cause hostilities to cease on their part—an engagement which was duly fulfilled by the proclamation issued on the eleventh instant; lastly, it does not appear, from the correspondence of the American ministers, or from any other information, either that such ratification was expected from the United States, or intended on the part of Great Britain; still less that any exchange of mutual ratifications has been in contemplation.

Second. If Congress are not bound to ratify the articles in question, the committee are of opinion, that it is inexpedient for them to go immediately into such an act; inasmuch as it might be thought to argue that Congress meant to give to those articles the quality and effect of a definitive treaty of peace with Great Britain, though neither their allies nor friends have as yet proceeded further than to sign preliminary articles; and inasmuch as it may oblige Congress to fulfil immediately ail the stipulations contained in the provisional articles, though they have no evidence that a correspondent obligation will be assumed by the other party.

Third. If the ratification in question be neither obligatory nor expedient, the committee are of opinion, that an immediate discharge of all prisoners of war, on the part of the United States, is premature and unadvisable; especially as such a step may possibly lessen the force of demands for a reimbursement of the sums expended in the subsistence of the prisoners.

Upon these considerations, the committee recommend that a decision of Congress on the papers referred to them be postponed.

On this subject, a variety of sentiments prevailed.

Mr. DYER, on a principle of frugality, was strenuous for a liberation of the prisoners.

Mr. WILLIAMSON thought Congress not obliged to discharge the prisoners previous to a definitive treaty, but was willing to go into the measure as soon as the public honor would permit. He wished us to move pari passu with the British commander at New York. He suspected that that place would be held till the interests of the tories should be provided for.

Mr. HAMILTON contended, that Congress were bound, by the tenor of the provisional treaty, immediately to ratify it, and to execute the several stipulations inserted in it, particularly that relating to a discharge of prisoners.

Mr. BLAND thought Congress not bound.

Mr. ELLSWORTH was strenuous for the obligation and policy of going into an immediate execution of the treaty. He supposed, that a ready and generous execution on our part would accelerate the like on the other part.

Mr. WILSON was not surprised that the obscurity of the treaty should produce a variety of ideas. He thought, upon the whole, that the treaty was to be regarded as "contingently definitive."

The report of the committee being not consonant to the prevailing sense of Congress, it was laid aside.

Tuesday, April 15.

The ratification of the treaty and discharge of prisoners were again agitated. For the result in a unanimous ratification, see the secret Journal of this day; the urgency of the majority producing an acquiescence of most of the opponents to the measure.³⁰

Wednesday, April 16.

Mr. HAMILTON acknowledged that he began to view the obligation of the provisional treaty in a different light, and, in consequence, wished to vary the direction of the commander-in-chief from a positive to a preparatory one, as his motion on the Journal states.³¹

Thursday, April 17.

Mr. MADISON, with the permission of the committee on revenue, reported the following clause, to be added to the tenth paragraph in the first report, viz.:

"And to the end that convenient provision may be made for determining, in all such cases, how far the expenses may have been reasonable, as well with respect to the object thereof as the means for accomplishing it, thirteen commissioners—namely, one out of each state—shall be appointed by Congress, any seven of whom, having first taken an oath for the faithful and impartial execution of their trust, who shall concur in the same opinion, shall be empowered to determine finally on the reasonableness of the claims for expenses incurred by particular states as aforesaid; and, in order that such determinations may be expedited as much as possible, the commissioners now in appointment for adjusting accounts between the United States and individual states shall be instructed to examine all such claims, and report to Congress such of them as shall be supported by satisfactory proofs—distinguishing, in their reports, the objects and measures in which the expenses shall have been incurred; provided, that no balances, which may be found due under this regulation, or the resolutions of the ——— day of ———, shall be deducted out of the preceding revenues, but shall be discharged by separate requisitions to be made on the states for that purpose."

In support of this proposition it was argued, that, in a general provision for public debts and public tranquillity, satisfactory measures ought to be taken on a point which many of the states had so much at heart, and which they would not separate from the other matters proposed by Congress; that the nature of the business was unfit for the decision of Congress, who brought with them the spirit of advocates rather than of judges; and, besides, it required more time than could be spared for it.

On the opposite side, some contended, that the accounts between the United States and particular states should not be made in any manner to encumber those between the former and private persons. Others thought, that Congress could not delegate to commissioners a power of allowing claims for which the Confederation required nine states. Others were unwilling to open so wide a door for claims on the common treasury.

On the question, Massachusetts, divided; Connecticut, ay; Rhode Island, no; New York, no; New Jersey, no; Pennsylvania, no; Maryland, no; Virginia, ay; North Carolina, no; South Carolina, no.

Friday, April 18.

Application was made from the council of Pennsylvania for the determination of Congress as to the effect of the acts terminating hostilities on acts to be enforced during the war. Congress declined giving any opinion.

The motion of Mr. BLAND for striking out the recommendation, to the states which had agreed to cede territory, to revise and complete their cessions, raised a long debate. In favor of the motion it was urged, by Mr. RUTLEDGE, that the proposed cession of Virginia ought to be previously considered and disallowed; that otherwise a renewal of the recommendation would be offensive; that it was possible the cession might be accepted, in which case the renewal would be improper. Virginia, he observed, alone could be alluded to as having complied in part only.

Mr. WILSON went largely into the subject He said, if the investigation of right was to be considered, the United States ought rather to make cessions to individual states than receive cessions from them, the extent of the territory ceded by the treaty being larger than all the states put together; that when the claims of the states came to be limited on principles of right, the Alleghany Mountains would appear to be the true boundary; this could be established, without difficulty, before any court, or the tribunal of the world. He thought, however, policy required that such a boundary should be established as would give to the Atlantic States access to the western waters. If accommodation was the object, the clause ought by no means to be struck out. The cession of Virginia would never be accepted, because it guarantied to her the country as far as the Ohio, which never belonged to Virginia. (Here he was called to order by Mr. JONES.) The question, he said, must be decided The indecision of Congress had been hurtful to the interests of the United States. If the compliance of Virginia was to be sought, she ought to be urged to comply fully.

For the vote in the affirmative, with the exception of Virginia and South Carolina, see Journal.

The plan of revenue was then passed as it had been amended, all the states present concurring except Rhode Island, which was in the negative, and New York, which was divided—Mr. FLOYD, ay, and Mr. HAMILTON, no.³²

Monday, April 21.

A motion was made by Mr. HAMILTON, seconded by Mr. MADISON, to annex to the plan of the eighteenth instant the part omitted, relating to expenses incurred by individual states. On the question, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia alone were in the affirmative; Connecticut and Georgia not present.

Tuesday, April 22.

See Journal.

Wednesday, April 23.

The resolution permitting the soldiers to retain their arms was passed at the recommendation of General Washington. (See his letter on the files.)

The resolution for granting furloughs or discharges was a compromise between those who wished to get rid of the expense of keeping the men in the field and those who thought it impolitic to disband the army whilst the British remained in the United States.³³

Thursday, April 24, and Friday, April 25.

See Journal.

Saturday, April 26.

Address to the states passed nem. con. It was drawn up by Mr. Madison. The address to Rhode Island, referred to as No. 2, had been drawn up by Mr. Hamilton. See Vol. I. p. 96, Elliot's Debates.

---

1. His dissent was founded on his construction of the treaty, as stated in a paper handed to Mr. Madison at the time. The following is a copy:—
   "The words such treaty are relative.
   "The antecedents must either be the 'treaty proposed to be concluded between the crown of Great Britain and the United States' or 'the terms of peace to be agreed upon between Great Britain and France.'
   "Let us see how it will read if we understand it in the first sense. The articles are 'to be inserted, and to constitute the treaty of peace proposed to be concluded between the crown of Great Britain and the United Slates; but which treaty is not to be concluded (until terms of peace shall be agreed upon between Great Britain and France, and) until his Britannic Majesty shall be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly.'
   "The words included in the parenthesis may in this case be omitted, and then the sentence will have no meaning.
   "But if the words such treaty are construed as relative to the words terms of peace, the meaning will be plain; and if terms of peace have been agreed upon between France and Britain, then the contingency has happened on which the proposed treaty between America and Britain was to take effect."^{[a 1]}

1. See his change of opinion expressed in the debates of April 16.