Smith, of New Jersey, had the vote of that state, and Mr. Merchant, of Rhode Island, the vote of that state.
The resolutions respecting Vermont, moved by Mr. M'KEAN on the 27th day of November, were taken into consideration. They were seconded by Mr. HAMILTON, as entered on the Journal of this day. Previous to the question on the coercive clause, Mr. MADISON observed, that, as the preceding clause was involved in it, and the Federal Articles did not delegate to Congress the authority about to be enforced, it would be proper, in the first place, to amend the recital in the previous clause by inserting the ground on which the authority of Congress had been interposed. Some, who voted against this motion in this stage, having done so from a doubt as to the point of order, it was revived in a subsequent stage, when that objection did not lie. The objections to the motion itself were urged chiefly by the delegates from Rhode Island, and with a view, in this, as in all other instances, to perplex and protract the business. The objections were—first, that the proposed insertion was not warranted by the act of New Hampshire, which submitted to the judgment of Congress merely the question of jurisdiction; secondly, that the resolutions of August, 1781, concerning Vermont, having been acceded to by Vermont, annulled all antecedent acts founded on the doubtfulness of its claim to independence. In answer to the first objection, the act of New Hampshire was read, which, in the utmost latitude, adopted the resolutions of Congress, which extended expressly to the preservation of peace and order, and prevention of acts of confiscation by one party against another. To the second objection it was answered—first, that the said resolutions of August being conditional, not absolute, the cession of Vermont could not render them definitive; but, secondly, that prior to this accession, Vermont having, in due form, rejected the resolutions, and notified the rejection to Congress, the accession could be of no avail, unless subsequently admitted by Congress; thirdly, that this doctrine had been maintained by Vermont itself, which had declared that, inasmuch as the resolutions of August did not correspond with their overtures previously made to Congress, these had ceased to be obligatory; which act, it was to be observed, was merely declaratory, not creative, of the annulment.
The original motion of Mr. M'KEAN and Mr. HAMILTON was agreed to, seven states voting for it, Rhode Island and New Jersey in the negative.
Friday, December 6.
An ordinance, extending the privilege of franking letters to the heads of all the departments, was reported and taken up. Various ideas were thrown out on the subject at large; some contending for the extension proposed; some for a total abolition of the privilege, as well in members of Congress as in others; some for a limitation of the privilege to a definite number or weight of letters. Those who contended for a total abolition, represented the privilege as productive of abuses, as reducing the profits so low as to prevent the extension of the establishment throughout the United States, and as throwing the whole burden of the establishment on the mercantile intercourse. On the other side it was contended, that, in case of an abolition, the delegates, or their constituents, would be taxed just in proportion to their distance from the seat of Congress; which was neither just nor politic, considering the many other disadvantages which were inseparable from that distance; that as the correspondence of the delegates was the principal channel through which a general knowledge of public affairs was diffused, any abridgment of it would so far confine this advantage to the states within the neighborhood of Congress; and that, as the correspondence at present, however voluminous, did not exclude from the mail any private letters which would be subject to postage, and if postage was extended to letters now franked, the number and size of them would be essentially reduced, the revenue was not affected in the manner represented. The ordinance was disagreed to, and the subject recommitted, with instruction to the committee, giving them ample latitude for such report, as they should think fit.
A Boston newspaper, containing, under the Providence head, an extract of a letter purporting to be written by a gentleman in Philadelphia, and misrepresenting the state of our loans, as well aa betraying the secret proposal of the Swedish court to enter into a treaty with the United States, with the view of disproving to the people of Rhode Island the necessity of the impost of five per cent., had been handed about for several days. From the style and other circumstances, it carried strongly