by Jonathan Elliot

Previous Day | Full Calendar | Next Day

Tuesday, February 4, 1783

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 as 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 a 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 Jersey, no; Virginia, ay, (Mr. LEE, no;) other states, ay: so the question was lost. Five years was then proposed, on which New Hampshire was, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, no: so there were but six ayes, and the proposition was lost. Mr. WILLIAMSON proposed five and a quarter, and called for the yeas and nays. Messrs. WOLCOTT and DYER observed, that they were bound by instructions on this subject. Mr. ARNOLD said the case was the same with him. They also queried the validity of the act of Congress which had stipulated half-pay to the army, as it had passed before the Confederation, and by a vote of less than seven states. Mr. MADISON said that he wished, if the yeas and nays were called, it might be on the true calculation, and not on an arbitrary principle of compromise; as the latter, standing singly on the Journal, would not express the true ideas of the yeas, and might even subject them to contrary interpretations. He said that the act was valid, because it was decided according to the rule then in force; and that, as the officers had served under the faith of it, justice fully corroberated it, and that he was astonished to hear these principles controverted. He was also astonished to hear objections against a commutation come from states, in compliance with whose objections against the half-pay itself this expedient had been substituted. Mr. WILSON expressed his surprise, also, that instructions should be given which militated against the most peremptory and lawful engagements of Congress, and said that, if such a doctrine prevailed, the authority of the Confederacy was at an end. Mr. ARNOLD said that he wished the report might not be decided on at this time; that the Assembly of Rhode Island was in session, and he hoped to receive their further advice. Mr. BLAND enforced the ideas of Mr. Madison and Mr. Wilson. Mr. GILMAN thought it would be best to refer the subject of half-pay to the several states, to be settled between them and their respective lines. By general consent the report lay over.

Mr. LEE communicated to Congress a letter he had received from Mr. Samuel Adams, dated Boston, December 22, 1782, introducing Mr.—, from Canada, as a person capable of giving intelligence relative to affairs in Canada, and the practicability of uniting that province with the confederated states. The letter was committed.

In committee of the whole on the report concerning a valuation of the lands of the United States,—

A motion was made by Mr. RUTLEDGE, which took the sense of Congress on this question—whether the rule of apportionment, to be grounded on the proposed valuation, should continue in force until revoked by Congress, or a period be now fixed beyond which it should not continue in force. The importance of the distinction lay in the necessity of having seven votes on every act of Congress. The Eastern States were, generally, for the latter, supposing that the Southern States, being impoverished by the recent havoc of the enemy, would be underrated in the first valuation. The Southern States were, for the same reason, interested in favor of the former. On the question there were six ayes only, which produced a dispute whether, in a committee of the whole, a majority would decide, or whether seven votes were necessary.

In favor of the first rule, it was contended by Mr. GORHAM and others, that in committees of Congress the rule always is, that a majority decides.

In favor of the latter, it was contended that, if the rule of other committees applies to a committee of the whole, the vote should be individual per capita, as well as by a majority; that in other deliberative assemblies the rules of voting were not varied in committees of the whole, and that it would be inconvenient in practice to report to Congress, as the sense of the body, a measure approved by four or five states, since there could be no reason to hope that, in the same body, in a different form, seven states would approve it; and, consequently, a waste of time would be the result.

The committee rose, and Congress adjourned.

Previous Day | Full Calendar | Next Day

)