Elmore, Mr. Hamilton. In favor of the second were Mr. Arnold, Mr. Dyer, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Gorham, Mr. Rutledge, and Mr. Gilman. So the latter was immediately handed in U Congress, and referred to a committee of the whole, into which they immediately resolved themselves.
A motion was made by Mr. BLAND, seconded by Mr. MADISON, that the report should be taken up in preference to the subject of general funds. Mr. WILSON opposed it as irregular and inconvenient to break in on an unfinished subject and supposed that, as some further experiment must be intended than merely a discussion of the subject in Congress, before the subject of general funds would be seriously resumed, he thought it unadvisable to interrupt the latter.
Mr. MADISON answered, that the object was not to retard the latter business, but to remove an obstacle to it; that as the two subjects were, in some degree, connected, as means of restoring public credit, and inseparably connected in the minds of many members, it was but reasonable to admit one as well as the other to a share of attention; that if a valuation of land should be found, on mature deliberation, to be as efficacious a remedy as was by some supposed, it would be proper at least to combine it with the other expedient, or perhaps to substitute it altogether; if the contrary should become apparent, its patrons would join the more cordially in the object of a general revenue.
Mr. HAMILTON concurred in these ideas, and wished the valuation to be taken up, in order that its impracticability and futility might become manifest The motion passed in the affirmative, and the report was taken up.
The phraseology was made more correct in several instances.
A motion was made by Mr. BOUDINOT, seconded by Mr. ELLSWORTH, to strike out the clause requiring a return of "the names of the owners," as well aa the quantity of land. Mr. ELLSWORTH also contended for a less specific return of the parcels of land. The objection against the clause was, that it would be extremely troublesome, and equally useless. Mr. BLAND thought these specific returns would be a check on frauds, and the suspicion of them. Mr. Williamson was of the same opinion, as were also Mr. Lee, Mr. Gorham, and Mr. Ramsay.[1] The motion was withdrawn by Mr. Boudinot.
Saturday and Monday.
No Congress.
Tuesday, February 4.
An indecent and tart remonstrance was received from Vermont against the interposition of Congress in favor of the persons who had been banished, and whose effects had been confiscated. A motion was made by Mr. HAMILTON, seconded by Mr. DYER, to commit it Mr. WOLCOTT, who had always patronized the case of Vermont, wished to know the views of a commitment Mr. HAMILTON said his view was, to fulfil the resolution of Congress which bound them to enforce the measure. Mr. DYER said his was, that so dishonorable a menace might be aa quickly as possible renounced. He said General Washington was in favor of Vermont; that the principal people of New England were all supporters of them; and that Congress ought to rectify the error into which they had been led, without longer exposing themselves to reproach on this subject It was committed without dissent.
Mr. WILSON informed Congress that the legislature of Pennsylvania, having found the ordinance of Congress, erecting a court for piracies, so obscure on some points that they were at a loss to adapt their laws to it had appointed a committee to confer with a committee of Congress. He accordingly moved, in behalf of the Pennsylvania delegation, that a committee might be appointed for that purpose. After some objections, by Mr. MADISON, against the impropriety of holding a communication with Pennsylvania through committees, when the purpose might be as well answered by a memorial, or an instruction to its delegates, a committee was appointed, consisting of Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Wilson.
The report proposing a commutation for the half-pay due to the army was taken up. On n motion to allow five and a half years' whole pay in gross to be funded and bear interest,—this being the rate taken from Dr. Price's calculation of annuities,—New Hampshire was, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New
- ↑ Mr. DYER ludicrously proposed, as a proviso to the scheme of referring the valuation to the states, "that each of the states should cheat equally."
