Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/79

1783.] Mr. HAMILTON opposed the motion strenuously; declared that, as a friend to the army as well as to the other creditors and to the public at large, he would never assent to such a partial distribution of justice; that the different states, being differently attached to different branches of the public debt, would never concur in establishing a fund which was not extended to every branch; that it was impolitic to divide the interests of the civil and military creditors, whose joint efforts in the states would be necessary to prevail on them to adopt a general revenue.

Mr. MERCER favored the measure, as necessary to satisfy the army, and to avert the consequences which would result from their disappointment on this subject. He pronounced, that the army would not disband until satisfactory provision should be made, and tint this was the only attainable provision; but he reprobated the doctrine of permanent debt supported by a general and permanent revenue, and said that it would be good policy to separate, instead of cementing, the interests of the army and the other public creditors; insinuating that the claims of the latter were not supported by justice, and that the loan-office certificates ought to be revised.

Mr. FITZSIMMONS observed, that it was unnecessary to make a separate appropriation of the impost to one particular debt; since, if other funds should be superadded, there would be more simplicity and equal propriety in an aggregate fund for the aggregate debt funded, and that, if no other funds should be superadded, it would be unjust and impolitic; that the states whose citizens were the chief creditors of the United States would never concur in such a measure; that the mercantile interest, which comprehended the chief creditors of Pennsylvania, had by their influence obtained the prompt and full concurrence of that state in the impost; and if that influence were excluded, the state would repeal its law. He concurred with those who hoped the army would not disband unless provision should be made for doing them justice.

Mr. LEE contended, that, as every body felt and acknowledged the force of the demands of the army, an appropriation of the impost to them would recommend it to all the states; that distinct and specific appropriation of distinct revenue was the only true system of finance, and was the practice of all other nations who were enlightened on this subject; that the army had not only more merit than the mercantile creditors, but that the latter would be more able, on a return of peace, to return to the business which would support them.

Mr. MADISON said, that, if other funds were to be superadded, as the gentleman (Mr. Rutledge) who made the motion admitted, it was at least premature to make the appropriation in question; that it would be best to wait till all the funds were agreed upon, and then appropriate them respectively to those debts to which they should be best fitted; that it was probable the impost would be judged best adapted to the foreign debt, as the foreign creditors could not, like the domestic, ever recur to particular states for separate payments; and that, as this would be a revenue little felt, it would be prudent to assign it to those for whom the states would care least, leaving more obnoxious revenues for those creditors who would excite the sympathy of their countrymen, and could stimulate them to do justice.

Mr. WILLIAMSON was against the motion; said he did not wish the army to disband until proper provision should be made for them; that if force should be necessary to excite justice, the sooner force was applied the better.

Mr. WILSON was against the motion of Mr. Rutledge; he observed that no instance occurred in the British history of finance in which distinct appropriations had been made to distinct debts already contracted; that a consolidation of funds had been the result of experience; that an aggregate fund was more simple, and would be most convenient; that the interest of the whole funded debt ought to be paid before the principal of any part of it; and, therefore, in case of surplus of the impost beyond the interest of the army debt, it ought, at any rate, to be applied to the interest of the other debts, and not, as the motion proposed, to the principal of the army debt He was fully of opinion that such a motion would defeat itself; that, Of dividing the interest of the civil from that of the military creditors, provision for the latter would be frustrated.

On the question on Mr. Rutledge's motion, the states were—New Hampshire, no; Massachusetts, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, no; Virginia, no; (Mr. Lee and Mr. Mercer, ay;) North Carolina, no; South Carolina, ay.

On the clause reported by the committee of the whole, in favor of limiting the impost to twenty-five years, the states were — New Hampshire, ay; Massachusetts, ay;