which that declaration had resulted; by the memorial from the state of Pennsylvania holding out the idea of separate appropriations of her revenue unless provision were made for the public creditors; by the deplorable and dishonorable situation of public affairs, which had compelled Congress to draw bills on the unpromised and contingent bounty of their ally, and which was likely to banish the superintendent of finance, whose place could not be supplied, from his department. He observed, that he had not introduced details into the debate, because he thought them premature, until a general principle should be fixed; and that, as soon as the principle should be fixed, he would, although not furnished with any digested plan, contribute all in his power to the forming such a one.
Mr. RUTLEDGE moved, that the proposition might be committed, in order that some practicable plan might be reported before Congress should declare that it ought to be adopted.
Mr. IZARD seconded the motion, from a conciliatory view.
Mr. MADISON thought the commitment unnecessary, and would have the appearance of delay; that too much delay had already taken place; that the deputation of the army had a right to expect an answer to their memorial as soon as it could be decided by Congress. He differed from Mr. Wilson in thinking that a specification of the objects of a general revenue would be improper, and thought that those who doubted its practicability had a right to expect proof of it from details, before they could be expected to assent to the general principle; but he differed also from Mr. Rutledge, who thought a commitment necessary for the purpose; since his views would be answered by leaving the motion before the House, and giving the debate a greater latitude. He suggested, as practicable objects of a general revenue, first, an impost on trade; secondly, a poll-tax under certain qualifications; thirdly, a land-tax under ditto.[1]
Mr. HAMILTON suggested a house and window tax. He was in favor of the mode of conducting the business urged by Mr. Madison.
On the motion for the commitment, six states were in favor of it, and five against it; so it was lost. In this vote, the merits of the main proposition very little entered.
Mr. LEE said, that it was a waste of time to be forming resolutions and settling principles on this subject. He asked whether these would ever bring any money into the public treasury. His opinion was, that Congress ought, in order to guard against the inconvenience of meetings of the different legislatures at different and even distant periods, to call upon the executives to convoke them all at one period, and to lay before them a full state of our public affairs. He said, the states would never agree to those plans which tended to aggrandize Congress; that they were jealous of the power of Congress, and that he acknowledged himself to be one of those who thought this jealousy not an unreasonable one; that no one who had ever opened a page, or read a line, on the subject of liberty, could be insensible to the danger of surrendering the purse into the same hands which held the sword.
The debate was suspended by an adjournment.
Wednesday, January 20.
Mr. FITZSIMMONS reminded Congress of the numerous inaccuracies and errors in the American column of the treaty with Holland, and proposed that a revision of it, as ratified, should take place, in order that some steps might be taken for redressing the evil. He added, that an accurate comparison of it with the treaty with France ought also to be made, for the purpose of seeing whether it consisted in all its parts with the latter.[2] He desired the committee who had prepared the ratification to give some explanation on the subject to Congress.
- ↑ A poll-tax to be qualified by rating blacks somewhat lower than whites; a land-tax, by considering the value of land in each stale to be in an inverse proportion of its quantity to the number of people; and apportioning on the aggregate quantity in each state accordingly, leaving the state at liberty to make a distributive apportionment on its several districts on a like or any other equalizing principle.
- ↑ Mr. Hamilton told Mr. Madison, privately, that M. de Marbois, speaking of the treaty, asked him emphatically whether there were not some articles which required animadversion. Mr. H. did not, at the time, know what was alluded to. He now supposed the allusion to be to some article supposed to be inconsistent with the treaty with France; particularly the article referring to the select articles of the latter, instead of the whole; which article, Mr. Adams informed Congress, had been satisfactory to the Duke de la Vauguyon.
