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 an 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 halfpay 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,

The

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. 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 saine 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.

WEDNESDAY, February 5, and THURSDAY, February 6. In order to decide the rule of voting in a committee of the whole, before Congress should go into the said committee, Mr. BLAND moved that the rule should be to vote by states, and the majority of states in committee to decide. Mr. WILSON moved to postpone Mr. Bland's motion, in order to resolve that the rule be to vote by states, and according to the same rules which govern Congress. As this general

question was connected, in the minds of members, with the particular question to which it was to be immediately applied, the motion for postponing was negatived chiefly by the Eastern States. A division of the question on Mr. Bland's motion was then called for, and the first part was agreed to, as on the Journal. The latter clause to wit, a majority to decide - was negatived; so nothing as to the main point was determined. In this uncertainty, Mr. OSGOOD proposed that Congress should resolve itself into a committee of the whole. Mr. CARROLL, as chairman, observed that, as the same difficulty would occur, he wished Congress would, previously, direct him how to proceed. Mr. HAMILTON proposed that the latter clause of Mr. Bland's motion should be reconsidered, and agreed to, wrong as it was, rather than have no rule at all. In opposition to which it was said, that there was no more reason why one, and that not the minor, side should wholly yield to the inflexibility of the other, than vice versa; and that, it they should be willing to yield on the present occasion, it would be better to do it tacitly than to saddle themselves with an express and perpetual rule which they judged improper. This expedient was assented to, and Congress accordingly went into a committee of the whole.

The points arising on the several amendments proposed were, first, the period beyond which the rule of the first valuation should not be in force. On this point Mr. COLLINS proposed five years, Mr. BLAND ten years, Mr. BOUDINOT seven years: New Jersey having instructed her delegates thereon. The Connecticut delegates proposed three years. On the question for three years, New Hampshire, no; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, ay; Connecticut, ay; all the other states, no. On the question for five years, all the states ay, except Connecticut.

The second point was whether, and how far, the rule should be retrospective. On this point the same views operated as on the preceding. Some were against any retrospection, others for extending it to the whole debt, and others for extending it so far as was necessary for liquidating and closing the accounts between the United States and each individual state.

The several motions expressive of these different ideas were at length withdrawn, with a view that the point might be better digested, and more accurately brought before Congress; so the report was agreed to in the committee, and made to Congress. When the question was about to be put, Mr. MADISON observed that the report lay in a great degree of confusion; that several points had been decided in a way too vague and indirect to ascertain the real sense of Congress; that other points involved in the subject had not received any decision; and proposed the sense of Congress should be distinctly and successively taken on all of them, and the result referred to a special committee, to be digested, &c. The question was, however, put, and negatived, the votes being as they appear on the Journal. The reasons on which Mr. Hamilton's motion was grounded appear from its preamble.

FRIDAY, February 7.

On motion of Mr. LEE, who had been absent when the report was yesterday negatived, the matter was reconsidered. The plan of taking the sense of Congress on the several points, as yesterday proposed by Mr. Madison, was generally admitted as proper.

The first question proposed in committee of the whole by Mr. MADISON, was: Shall a valuation of land within the United States, as directed by the Articles of Confederation, be immediately attempted? - Eight ayes; New York, only, The states present were New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina; Rhode Island, one member; Maryland, one.

no.

By Mr. WILSON

Q. Shali each state be called on to return to the United States, in Congress assembled, the number of acres granted to, or surveyed for, any person, and also the number of buildings within it? Eight ayes; North Carolina, no— supposing this not to accord with the plan of referring the valuation to the states, which was patronized by that delegation. A supplement to this question was suggested as follows: :

Q. Shall the male inhabitants be also returned, the blacks and whites being therein distinguished?- Ay; North Carolina, no-for the same reason as al ove Connecticut divided.

By Mr. MADISON

Q. Shall the states be called on to return to Congress an estimate of the value of their lands, with the buildings and improvements within each, respectively? After some discussion on this point, in which the inequalities which would result from such estimates were set forth at large, and effects of such an experiment in Virginia had been described by Mr. Mercer, and a comparison of an average valuation in Pennsylvania and Virginia, which amounted in the latter to fifty per cent. more than in the former, although the real value of land in the former was confessedly thrice that of the latter, had been quoted by Mr. Madison, the apprehensions from a reference of any thing more to the states than a report of simple facts increased; and on the vote the states were as follows: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, no- Mr. Bland, ay; Mr. Lee, silent; Connecticut, North Carolina, South Carolina, ay; New York, divided: so it passed in the negative.

By Mr. MADISON —

Q. Shall a period be now fixed, beyond which the rule to be eventually established by Congress shall not be in force?-ay, unanimously.

By Mr. MADISON

Q. What shall that period be? Connecticut was again for three years; which being rejected, five years passed unanimously.

By Mr. MADISON —

Q. Shall the rule so to be established have retrospective operation, so far as may be necessary for liquidating and closing the accounts between the United States and each particular state?-ay; Connecticut, no. Mr. DYER and Mr. MERCER understood this as making the amount of the several requisitions of Congress, and not of the payments by the states, the standard by which the accounts were to be liquidated, and thought the latter the just quantum for retrospective appointment. Their reasoning, however, was not fully comprehended.

Committee of the Whole.

SATURDAY, February 8.

Mr. MERCER revived the subject of retrospective operation, and after it had been much discussed, and the difference elucidated which might happen between apportioning, according to the first valuation which should be made, merely the sums paid on the requisitions of Congress, and apportioning the whole requisitions, consisting of the sums paid and the deficiencies, which might not be paid until some distant day, when a different rule, formed under different circumstances of the states, should be in force, the assent to the last question, put yesterday, was reversed, and there was added to the preceding question, after "five years," -" and shall operate as a rule for apportioning the sums necessary to be raised for supporting the public credit and other contingent expenses, and for adjusting all accounts between the United States and each particular state, for moneys paid or articles furnished by them, and for no other purpose whatsoever." On this question there were six ayes; so it became a vote of the committee of the whole.

MONDAY, February 10.

For the report of the committee on the resolutions of Virginia, concerning the contract under which tobacco was to be exported to New York, and the admis sion of circumstantial proof of accounts against the United States, where legal vouchers had been destroyed by the enemy, see the Journal of this date.

Mr. MERCER informed Congress that this matter had made much noise in Virginia; that she had assented to the export of the first quantity, merely out of respect to Congress, and under an idea that her rights of sovereignty had been encroached upon; and that, as a further quantity had been exported without the license of the state, the question was unavoidable, whether the authority of Congress extended to the act. He wished, therefore, that Congress would proceed to decide the question.

Mr. FITZSIMMONS, in behalf of the committee, observed that they went no further than to examine whether the proceedings of the officers of Congress were conformable to the resolution of Congress, and not whether the latter were within the power of Congress.

Mr. LEE said, the report did not touch the point; that the additional quantity had been exported without application to the state, although the first quantity was licensed by the state with great reluctance, in consequence of the request of Congress, and of assurances against a repetition; and thit the superintendent and secretary of Congress ought, at any rate, to have made application to the executive before they proceeded to further exportations.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, the report went to the very point, that Virginia suspected the resolutions of Congress had been abused by the officers of Congress, and the report showed that no such abuse had taken place; that if this information was not satisfactory, and the state should contest the right of Congress in the case, it would then be proper to answer it on that point, but not before. He said, if the gentleman (Mr. Lee) meant the committee, authorized by Congress on the 29th day of May, 1782, to make explanations on the subject to the legislature of Virginia, had given the assurances he mentioned, he must be mistaken; for none such had been given. He had, he said, formed notes of his remarks to the legislature; but, according to his practice, had destroyed them after the occasion was over, and therefore could only assert this from memory; that nevertheless his memory enabled him to do it with certainty.

Mr. LEE, in explanation, said he did not mean the committee; that the abuse complained of was not that the resolutions of Congress had been exceeded, but that the export had been undertaken without the sanction of the state. If the acts were repeated, he said, great offence would be given to Virginia.

The report was agreed to, as far as the tobacco was concerned, without a dissenting voice; Mr. Lee uttering a no, but not loud enough to be heard by Congress or the Chair. The part relating to the loss of vouchers was unanimously agreed to.

Committee of the Whole.

The report for the valuation of land was amended by the insertion of "distinguishing dwelling-houses from others."

The committee adjourned, and the report was made to Congress.

Mr. LEE and Mr. GERVAIS moved that the report might be postponed to adopt another plan, to wit,

"To call on the states to return a valuation, and to provide that, in case any return should not be satisfactory to all parties, persons should be appointed by Congress, and others by the states, respectively, to adjust the case finally."

On this question New Hampshire was divided; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, ay; Connecticut, no; New York, divided; New Jersey, no; Pennsylvania, no; Virginia, no; Mr. Madison and Mr. Jones, no; Mr. Lee and Mr. Bland, ay; North Carolina, ay; South Carolina, ay: so the motion failed.

TUESDAY, February 11.

The report made by the committee of the whole having decided that the mode to be grounded on the return of facts called for from the states ought now to be ascertained,

Mr. RUTLEDGE proposed, seconded by Mr. GILMAN, that the states should be required to name commissioners, each of them one, who, or any nine of them, should be appointed and empowered by Congress, to settle the valuation. Mr. Gorham was against it, as parting with a power which might be turned by the states against Congress. Mr. Wolcott against it; declares his opinion that the Confederation ought to be amended by substituting numbers of inhabitants as the rule; admits the difference between freemen and blacks; and suggests a compromise, by including in the numeration such blacks only as were within sixteen and sixty years of age. Mr. WILSON was against relinquishing such a power to the states; proposes that the commissioners be appointed by Congress, and their proceedings subject to the ratification of Congress. Mr. MERCER was for submitting them to the revision of Congress; and this amendment was received. Mr. PETERS against the whole scheme of valuation, as holding out false lights and hopes to the public. Mr. RUTLEDGE thinks commissioners appointed by the states may be trusted, as well as commissioners appointed by Congress, or as Congress themselves. Mr. WILSON observes that, if appointed by the states, they will bring with them the spirit of agents for their respective states; if appointed by Congress, they will consider themselves as servants of the United States at large, and be more impartial

Mr. GORHAM, seconded by Mr. Wilson, proposes to postpone, in order to require the states to appoint commissioners to give Congress information for a basis for a valuation. On the question, New Hampshire, no; Massachusetts, ay; Rhode Island, ay; Connecticut, ay; New York, ay; New Jersey, ay; Pennsylvania, ay; Virginia, no; North Carolina, no; South Carolina, no: so it was decided in the negative.

To make the resolution more clear, after the words "or any nine of them," the words "concurring therein" were added. Mr. RUTLEDGE says, that subjecting the acts of the commissioners to the revision of Congress had so varied his plan that he should be against it. On the main question, New Hampshire, ay; Massachusetts, ay; Rhode Island, ay; Connecticut, ay; New York, no; New Jersey, no; Pennsylvania, ay; Virginia, ay, (Mr. Madison, no;) North Carolina, ay; South Carolina, ay so it was agreed to; and the resolution, declaring that a mode should now be fixed, struck out, as executed. The whole report was then committed to a special committee, consisting of Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Gorham, and Mr. Gilman, to be formed into a proper act. 13

WEDNESDAY, February 12.

The declaration of Congress as to general funds, passed on January the 29th, appears on the Journals; and Congress resolved itself into a committee of the whole, in order to consider the funds to be adopted and recommended to the states.

On motion of Mr. MIFFLIN, the impost of five per cent. was taken into consideration. As it seemed to be the general opinion that some variations from the form in which it had been first recommended would be necessary for reconciling the objecting states to it, it was proposed that the sense of the committee should be taken on that head. The following questions were accordingly propounded: — Question 1. Is it expedient to alter the impost as recommended on the

1781 ?

day of

Mr. LEE said the states, particularly Virginia, would never concur in the measure unless the term of years were limited, the collection left to the states, and the appropriation annually laid before them.

Mr. WOLCOTT thought the revenue ought to be commensurate, in point of time as well as amount, to the debt; that there was no danger in trusting Congress, considering the responsible mode of its appointment; and that to alter the plan would be a mere condescension to the prejudices of the states.

Mr. GORHAM favored the alteration for the same reason as Mr. Lee. He said private letters informed him that the opposition to the impost law was gaining ground in Massachusetts, and the repeal of Virginia would be very likely to give that opposition the ascendence. He said, our measures must be accommodated to the sentiments of the states, whether just or unreasonable.

Mr. HAMILTON dissented from the particular alterations suggested, but did not mean to negative the question.

Mr. BLAND was for conforming to the ideas of the states as far as would, in any manner, consist with the object.

On the question, the affirmative was unanimous, excepting the voice of Mr. WOLCOTT.

Question 2. Shall the term of duration be limited to twenty-five years?

Mr. MERCER professed a decided opposition to the principle of general revenue; observed that the liberties of England had been preserved by a separation of the purse from the sword; that, until the debts should be liquidated and apportioned, he would never assent, in Congress or elsewhere, to the scheme of the impost.

Mr. BLAND proposed an alternative of twenty-five years, or until the requisitions of Congress, according to the Articles of Confederation, shall be found adequate. On this proposition the votes were, of New Hampshire, divided; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New York, no; New Jersey, no; Pennsylvania, no; Virginia, ay; North Carolina, divided; South Carolina, ay: so the proposition was not agreed to On the main question for twenty-five years, it was voted in the affirmative. Question 3. Shall the appointment of collectors be left to the states, they to be amenable to, and under the control of, Congress? - Ay; several states, as New York and Pennsylvania, dissenting.

THURSDAY, February 13.

The committee report to Congress the alterations yesterday agreed on with respect to the five per cent. impost.