Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/83

1783.] established truth that the purse ought not to be put into the same hands with the sword; that like arguments had been used in favor of ship-money in the reign of Charles the First, it being then represented as essential to the support of the government; that the executive should be assured of the means of fulfilling its engagements for the public service. He said, it had been urged by several in behalf of such an establishment for public credit, that without it Congress was nothing more than a rope of sand. On this head he would be explicit; he had rather see Congress a rope of sand than a rod of iron. He urged, finally, as a reason why some states would not, and ought not, to concur in granting to Congress a permanent revenue, that some states (as Virginia) would receive back a small part by payment from the United States to its citizens; whilst others (as Pennsylvania) would receive a vast surplus, and, consequently, be draining the former of its wealth.

Mr. MERCER said, if he conceived the federal compact to be such as it had been represented, he would immediately withdraw from Congress, and do every thing in his power to destroy its existence; that if Congress had a right to borrow money as they pleased, and to make requisitions on the states that would be binding on them, the liberties of the states were ideal; that requisitions ought to be consonant to the spirit of liberty; that they should go frequently, and accompanied with full information; that the states must be left to judge of the nature of them, of their abilities to comply with them, and to regulate their compliance accordingly; he laid great stress on the omission of Congress to transmit half-yearly to the states an account of the moneys borrowed by them, &c., and even insinuated that this omission had absolved the states, in some degree, from the engagements. He repeated his remarks on the injustice of the rule by which loan-office certificates had been settled, and his opinion that some defalcations would be necessary.

Mr. HOLTON was opposed to all permanent funds, and to every arrangement not within the limits of the Confederation.

Mr. HAMILTON enlarged on the general utility of permanent funds to the federal interests of this country, and pointed out the difference between the nature of the constitution of the British executive and that of the United States, in answer to Mr. Lee's reasoning from the case of ship-money.

Mr. GORHAM adverted, with some warmth, to the doctrines advanced by Mr. Lee and Mr. Mercer, concerning the loan-office creditors. He said the union could never be maintained on any other ground than that of justice; that some states had suffered greatly from the deficiencies of others already; that, if justice was not to be obtained through the federal system, and this system was to fail, as would necessarily follow, it was time this should be known, that some of the states might be forming other confederacies adequate to the purposes of their safety.

This debate was succeeded by a discharge of the committee from the business of devising the means requisite for restoring public credit, &c. &c., and the business referred to a committee, consisting of Mr. Gorham, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Madison, Mr. Fitzsimmons, and Mr. Rutledge.

No Congress till

, February 25.

In favor of the motion of Mr. GILMAN, (see the Journal of this date,) to refer the officers of the army for their half-pay to their respective states, it was urged that this plan alone would secure to the officers any advantage from that engagement; since Congress had no independent fund out of which it could be fulfilled, and the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island, in particular, would not comply with any recommendation of Congress, nor even requisition, for that purpose. It was also said that it would be satisfactory to the officers; and that it would apportion on the states that part of the public burden with sufficient equality. Mr. DYER said, that the original promise of Congress on that subject was considered, by some of the states, as a fetch upon them, and not within the spirit of the authority delegated to Congress. Mr. WOLCOTT said, the states would give Congress nothing whatever, unless they were gratified in this particular. Mr. COLLINS said, Rhode Island had expressly instructed her delegates to oppose every measure tending to an execution of the promise out of moneys under the disposition of Congress.

On the other side, it was urged that the half-pay was a debt as solemnly contracted as any other debt, and was, consequently, as binding, under the 12th article of the Confederation, on the states, and that they could not refuse a requisition made for that purpose, 8