Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/57

1783.] , and one or two others who had conversed with Mr. Morris on the change of the last day of December for the ——— day of August, it was suggested that the change entirely contravened the measures pursued by his department; and moved for a reconsideration of it, in order to inquire into the subject Without going into details, they urged this as a reason sufficient. The eastern delegates although, they wished for unanimity and system in future proceedings relative to our funds and finances, were very stiff in retaining the vote which coincided with the steps taken by their constituents. Of this much complaint was made. Mr. RUTLEDGE, on this occasion, alleging that Congress ought not to be led by general suggestions derived from the office of finance, joined by Mr. Gervais, voted against the reconsideration. The consequence was, that South Carolina was divided, and six votes only in favor of the reconsideration. Mr. HAMILTON having expressed his regret at the negative, and explained more exactly the interference of the change of the epoch with the measures and plans of the office of finance, which had limited all state advances and settlements to August ———, 1780, Mr. RUTLEDGE acknowledged the sufficiency of the reasons, and at his instance the latter date was reinstated.$12$ On this second question Connecticut also voted for August.

The ——— day of August being reinstated, before a question on the whole paragraph was taken, Mr. GORHAM objected to the word "general" before funds, as ambiguous, and it was struck out; not, however, as improper, if referring to all the states, and not to all objects of taxation. Without this word the clause passed unanimously, even Rhode Island concurring in it.

Congress proceeded to the third clause relative to the commutation of half-pay. A motion was made, by Mr. HAMILTON, to fill the blank with "six;" this was in conformity to tables of Dr. Price, estimating the officers on the average of good lives. Liberality in the rate was urged by several as necessary to give satisfaction, and prevent a refusal of the offer. For this motion there were six ayes, five noes; the Southern States and New York being in the affirmative, the Eastern and New Jersey in the negative. Colonel BLAND proposed six and a half, erroneously supposing the negative of six to have proceeded from its being too low. It was, on the contrary, rather doubtful whether the Eastern States would concur in any arrangement on this head, so averse were they to what they call pensions. Several having calculated that the annual amount of half-pay was between four and five hundred thousand dollars, and the interest of the gross sum nearly two thirds of that sum. Congress were struck with the necessity of proceeding with more caution, and for that purpose committed the report to a committee of five—Mr. Osgood, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Gervais, Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Wilson.

On the motion of Mr. WILSON, Monday next was assigned for the consideration of the resolution on the second clause of the report on the memorial from the army. He observed, that this was necessary to prevent the resolution from being, like many others, vox et præterea nihil.

, January 27.

A letter from General Washington was received, notifying the death of Lord Stirling, and enclosing a report of the officer sent to apprehend Knowlton and Wells. (See p. .)

The following is an extract from the report:—

"He (one Israel Smith) further said, that Knowlton and Wells had received a letter from Jonathan Arnold, Esquire, at Congress, part of which was made public, which informed them that affairs in Congress were unfavorable to them, and would have them to look out for themselves. What other information this letter contained, he could not say. I found, in my march through the state, that the last-mentioned gentleman was much in favor with all the principal men in that state I had any conversation with."

Mr. ARNOLD, being present at the reading, informed Congress that ho was surprised how such a notion should have prevailed with respect to him; that he had never held any correspondence with either Knowlton or Wells; and requested that he might be furnished with the extract above. In this he was indulged without opposition. But it was generally considered, notwithstanding his denial of the correspondence, that he had, at least at second-hand, conveyed the intelligence to Vermont.

A long petition was read, signed, as alleged, by nearly two thousand inhabitants