The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, First Congress, First Session, Volume 2 Page: 1,457
[570] p.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1457. ' GALES & SEATON'S HISTORY 145S
H. ojR."] ' Public Credit. [March 2, 1790.
Carolina, were so notorious that explanation
was unnecessary. As it regarded Massachu-
setts., they were equal. She had, by the most
■persevering and arduous exertions, done much
in carrying on the common cause; the troops
she kept in the field generally exceeded the ra-
tio which ought to have been observed among
the States, and these she had procured and sup-
ported at enormous expense; in 1779, they fur-
nished about six thousand men; these weie not
for the defence of the territory of Massachu-
setts—they were for the common defence; they
were the productive laborers of that State, ap-
plied to other use; besides the loss of labor, the
State incurred an actual £xpense in her military
exertions. The amount was one million eight
hundred and twenty-eight thousand seven hun-
dred and eighty-one dollars. These were exer-
tions antecedent to 1783, and which, inasmuch
as they were paid off before that period, will
not be credited or paid under the motion nf the
gentleman from Virginia. Is this justice? Is
it equity? Shall a State he permitted to suffer
in this degree for superior exertions? It is invi-
dious to make comparisons, but we must make
them—they grow out of the subject. Was- a
roportionate advance of property or men made
y the State of Virginia? I do not undertake
tojtnow positively; but I am willing to pay due
honor to that State, and presume her exeitions
were proportioned to what was her real ability;
but then lean form no conception of that ability
equal to her supposed ratio. I am, however,
willing to admit, that a complete equality can-
not take place until a final settlement of ac-
counts. But I see no reason for believing- that
a greater inequality will take place by assuming
the State debts dje at and after 1779, than there
wiN be at the conclusion of the late war. Mas-
sachusetts suffered also a very great loss about
that period in the fall of the Continental money,
which ought likewise to be considered.
Mr. Sherman said, he was opposed to this
amendment for the same reason that he was
against the original amendment; that is, it woul d
increase the debt enormously, without tending
to equalize the burthen.
Mr. Boudinot thought the committee ought
to make the amendment as equal as possible, lest
it should, in the event, be carried; it would he
unjust if it did not provide as well for. the in-
terest as the principal; he therefore hoped the
gentlemen who were opposed to the original
amendment would vote with him for this, and
thfen reject the whole-
The question was now put on Mr. Smith's
amendment, and it passed in the affirmative.
Mr. Ames felt himself well authorized, on this
occasion, to depend upon the arguments which
had been urged by the gentlemen on the other
side of the question. It had been said, as a rea-
son against the assumption, that we ought not
to undertake to pay more than we are able, es-
fcially if the debt had never been contracted
the United States, and pay them in prejudice
those debts which wereabsolutely contracted
and really due. Apply these principles ttf'the
present motion. Do we know that we do not
undertake to pay more than weaie able tq pay,
when we assume to pay the whole of the debtor
side of the account, instead of the balance?
Gentlemen who contend that we are not able
to pay the State debts in the hands of indivi-
duals must have their imagination strangely
warped when they suppose us capable of paying
perhaps double the sum.
Is the Government under a contract to pay
the State debts? ^Gentlemen say there is no
obligation. Apply their argument to the case
in question, and you will be urged by them to>.
vote against the motion.
But why shall we increase our load unneces-
sarily? It we leave the exeitions-of the States
to be liquidated, and assume the balances, we
may not have the one-third of this amount t
pay. Interest paid by the several States since
,the peace may be'calculated at twelve mil-
lions, and the prinripaf sunk in the same_periorJ
at fifteen millions; this will double the amount
of the State debts. Now, if we respect their
arguments,or our own principles,, we nuist\ote
against the measure.
Mr. Mad-ison said, he believed thu Govern-
ment might, by increasing the amount of the
debt, increase the ability of providing for it; for,
in proportion as you make the debt equitable
and satisfactory, you; increase the willingness*
of the people to bear the burthen, of consequence
the Government is better able to extend its pro-
vision for the payment. But how will the gen-
tleman explain his own inconsistencyrin having
voted tn amend the amendment by the addition
of the words principal or interest; he tells you
that the insertion of the interest increases the
debt twelve millions, and yet he will agree ten
it; on what principle does he act?
Gentlemen have asked, is there any contract
obliging us to provide for the debts redeemed by
the States? I answer no: but I say justice de-
mands that if you assume the debts yet due by
particular States, you repay other States for the
exertions they made to extinguish their debt.
Mr. Ames denied being taxable with inconsis-
tency. He said it must be apparent to every gen-
tleman , that if States wore to be recompensed for
the exertions they had made since the peace,
they ought to be recompensed for them in what-
ever form they were to be found; it was as great
an exertion to pay the interest as it was to pay
the principal; but there was another leason for
his voting foi the amendment—the proposition,
as it was moved by the gentleman, was inde-
finite, by adding these words it became limited.
Mr. Geury said, the adoption of the motion
would not lessen the inequality, unless it was
the ease that one or two States had paid all their
debts, and the others none; bat as every State
had paid part of its debts, it was fair to presume
that they had done so in proportion to theiir abi-
lities, and that which was left undone was art
unequal burthen, which now ought to he takers:
up by the Union.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales, Joseph, 1761-1841. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, First Congress, First Session, Volume 2, book, 1834; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc29466/m1/92/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.