University of Virginia Library

TUESDAY, 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;[58] since Congress
had no independent fund out of which it could be fulfilled, and
the States of Cont. & R. I., in particular would not comply with
any recommendation of Cong 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. Wolcot said the States wd.
give Congs. nothing whatever unless they were gratified in this
particular. Mr. Collins said R. I. had expressly instructed her
delegates to oppose every measure tending to an execution of the
promise out of monies 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,
& that they could not refuse a requisition made for that purpose;
that it would be improper to countenance a spirit of that sort by
yielding to it that such concessions on the part of Congs. wd. produce
compliances on the part of the States, in other instances,
clogged with favorite conditions, that a reference of the officers
to the particular States to whose lines they belong would not be

satisfactory to the officers of those States who objected to half pay,
and would increase the present irritation of the army; that to do
it without their unanimous consent would be a breach of the contract
by which the U. S. collectively were bound to them; and
above all that the proposed plan, which discharged any particular
State which should settle with its officers on this subject, altho'
other States might reject the plan, from its proportion of that part
of the public burden, was a direct and palpable departure from
the law of the Confederation. According to this instrument the
whole public burden of debt must be apportioned according to a
valuation of land, nor cd. any thing but a unanimous concurrence
of the States dispense with this law. According to the plan proposed
so much of the public burden as the ½ pay sd. amount to,
was to be apportioned according to the number of officers belonging
to each line; the plan to take effect as to all those States
which should adopt it, without waiting for the unanimous adoption
of the States; and that if Congress had authority to make the
number of officers the rule of apportioning one part of the Public
debt on the States, they might extend the rule to any other part
or to the whole, or might substitute any other arbitrary rule which
they should think fit. The motion of Mr. Gilman was negatived.
See the ays & noes on the Journal.[59]