been fully canvassed, at the time when the impost was originally recommended by Congress, and finally exploded. He was, indeed, he said, opposed to the whole motion of Mr. Rutledge. Nothing would be a secure pledge to creditors that was not placed out of the control of the grantors. As long as it was in the power of the states to repeal their grants, in this respect, suspicions would prevail, and would prevent loans. Money ought to be appropriated by the states as it is by the Parliament of Great Britain. He proposed that the revenue to be solicited from the states should be irrevocable by them without the consent of Congress or of nine of the states. He disapproved of any determinate limitation to the continuance of the revenue, because the continuance of the debt could not be fixed, and that was the only rule that could be proper or satisfactory. He said he should adhere to these ideas in the face of the act of Virginia repealing her assent to the impost; that it was trifling with Congress to enable them to contract debts, and to withhold from them the means of fulfilling their contracts.
Mr. LEE said, he seconded the motion of Mr. Rutledge, because he thought it most likely to succeed; that he was persuaded the states would not concur in the impost on trade without a limitation of time affixed to it. With such a limitation, and the right of collection, he thought Virginia, Rhode Island; and the other states, probably would concur. The objection of his colleague, Mr. Bland, he conceived to be unfounded. No act of the states could be irrevocable, because, if so called, it might, notwithstanding, be repealed. But he thought there would be no danger of a repeal, observing that the national faith was all the security that was given in other countries, or that could be given. He was sensible that something was, of necessity, to be done in the present alarming crisis, and was willing to strike out the clause crediting the states for their respective collections of the revenue on trade, as it was supposed that it would impede the measure.
Mr. HAMILTON disliked every plan that made but partial provision for the public debts, as an inconsistent and dishonorable departure from the declaration made by Congress on that subject He said, the domestic creditors would take the alarm at any distinctions unfavorable to their claims; that they would withhold their influence from any such measures recommended by Congress; and that it must be principally from their influence on their respective legislatures, that success could be expected to any application from Congress for a general revenue.
Thursday, January 30.
The answer to the memorials from the legislature of Pennsylvania was agreed to as it stands on the Journal, New Jersey alone dissenting.
In the course of its discussion, several expressions were struck out which seemed to reprehend the states for the deficiency of their contributions. In favor of these expressions, it was urged that they were true, and ought to be held forth as the cause of the public difficulties, in justification of Congress. On the other side, it was urged that Congress had, in many respects, been faulty as well as the states—particularly in letting their finances become so disordered before they began to supply any remedy; and that, if this were not the case, it would be more prudent to address to the states a picture of the public distresses and danger than a satire on their faults; since the latter would only irritate them, whereas the former would tend to lead them into the measures supposed by Congress to be essential to the public interest.
The propriety of mentioning to the legislature of Pennsylvania the expedient, into which Congress had been driven, of drawing bills on Spain and Holland without previous warrant, the disappointment attending it, and the deductions ultimately ensuing from the aids destined to the United States by the court of Franco, was also a subject of discussion. On one side, it was represented as a fact which, being dishonorable to Congress, ought not to be proclaimed by them, and that in the present case it could answer no purpose. On the other side, it w as contended that it W88 already known to all the world; that, as a glaring proof of the public embarrassments, it would impress the legislature with the danger of making those separate appropriations which would increase the embarrassments; and particularly would explain, in some degree, the cause of the discontinuance of the French interest due on the loan-office certificates.
Mr. RUTLEDGE, and some other members, having expressed less solicitude