University of Virginia Library

THURSDAY, MARCH 27. THIS DAY NOT NOTED IN THE
JOURNAL AS IN SOME OTHER INSTANCES.

Revenues taken up as reported Mar. 7.[82]

The 5 paragraph in the Report on Revenue havg. been judged
not sufficiently explicit, and recommitted to be made more so, the
following paragraph was recd. in its place viz "That it be further
recommended to the several States, to establish for a term limited
to 25 years, and to appropriate" &c (to the word 2 Million of
dollars annually) which proportions shall be fixed and equalized
from time to time according to such rule as is or may be prescribed
by the Articles of Confederation; and in case the revenues so
established and appropriated by any State shall at any time yield
a sum exceeding its proportion, the excess shall be refunded to
it, and in case the same shall be found to be defective the immediate
deficiency shall be made good as soon as possible, and a
future deficiency guarded against by an enlargement of the Revenues
established provided that untill the rule of the Confederation
can be applied, the proportions of the 2,000,000 of dollars
aforesaid shall be as follows, viz

This amendment was accepted; a motion of Mr. Clarke to restrain
this apportionmt., in the first instance, to the term of 2
years, being first negatived. He contended that a valuation of
land would probably never take place, and that it was uncertain

whether the rule of numbers wd. be substituted and therefore that
the first apportionment might be continued throughout the 25
years, altho it must be founded on the present relative wealth of
the States, which would vary every year, in favor of those which
are the least populous.

This reasoning was not denied, but it was thought that such a
limitation might leave an interval in which no apportionment wd.
exist, whence confusion would proceed, & that an apprehension
of it would destroy public Credit.

A motion was made by Mr. Bland, 2ded. by Mr. Lee to go back
to the first part of the report & instead of the word "levy" an impost
of 5 Per C., to substitute the word "collect" an impost
&c. It was urged in favor of this motion that the first word
imported a legislative idea, & the latter an executive only, and
consequently the latter might be less obnoxious to the States. On
the other side it was said that the States would be governed more
by things than by terms; that if the meaning of both was the
same, an alteration was unnecessary; that if not, as seemed to be
the case, an alteration would be improper. It was particularly
apprehended, that if the term "collect" were to be used, the
States might themselves fix the mode of collection; whereas it was
indispensable that Congs. sd. have that power as well as that it
might be varied from time to time as circumstances or experience
sd. dictate, as that a uniformity might be observed throughout the
States. On the motion of Mr. Clarke, the negative was voted by
a large Majority, there being 4 ays only.

On the (8) parag. there was no argt. or opposition.

The (9) paragraph being considered by several as inaccurate in
point of phraseology, a motion was made by Mr. Madison to postpone
it, to take into consideration the following to wit "That in
order to remove all objections against a retrospective application
of the constitutional rule to the final apportionment on the several
States, of the monies & supplies actually contributed in pursuance
of requisitions of Congress, it be recommended to the States to
enable the U. S., in Congs. assembld. to make such equitable
abatements & alterations as the particular circumstances of the
States from time to time during the war may require, and as will
divide the burden of such actual contributions among them in

proportion to their respective abilities at the periods at which they
were made." On a question of striking out, the original paragraph
was agreed to without opposition. On the question to
insert the amendment of Mr. M., the votes of the States were,
5 ays, 6 noes, viz N. H. no—Cont. no—N. J. no. — Delre. no. —
Maryld. no.—S. C. no. the rest ay.

On the (10) paragraph relative to expences incurred by the
States without the sanction of Congs., Mr. Clarke exclaimed agst.
the unreasonableness of burdening the Union with all the extravagant
expenditures of particular States; and moved that it might
be struck out of the Report. Mr. Helmsly 2ded. the motion.

Mr. Madison said that the effects of rejecting this paragraph
wd. be so extensive that a full consideration of it ought at least to
precede such a step that the expences referred to in the paragraph
were, in part such as would have been previously sanctioned
by Congs., if application cd. have been made; since similar ones
had been so with respect to States within the vicinity of Congs. and
therefore complaints of injustice would follow a refusal; that
another part of the expences had been incurred in support of
claims to the territory of which cessions were asked by Congs., and
therefore these cd. not be expected, if the expences incident to
them should be rejected; that it was probable if no previous assurance
were given on this point, it would be made a condition
by the States ceding, as the Cessions of territory would be made a
condition by the States most anxious to obtain them; that by
these means the whole plan would be either defeated, or the part
thereof in question be ultimately forced on Congs., whilst they
might with a good grace yield it in the first instance; not to mention
that these unliquidated & unallowed claims would produce
hereafter such contests & heats among the States as wd. probably
destroy the plan even if it sd. be acceded to by the States without
this paragraph.

Mr. Dyer was in favor of the paragraph.

Mr. Rutledge opposed it as letting in a flood of claims which
were founded on extravagant projects of the States.

Mr. Higginson and Mr. Ghorham were earnest in favor of it,
remarking that the distance of Massachusetts from Congs. had denied
a previous sanction to the Militia operations agst. General

Burgoyne &c. The Penobscot expedition, also, had great weight
with them.

Mr. Williamson was in favor of it.

Mr. Wilson said he had always considered this Country with
respect to the war as forming one community; and that the States
which by their remoteness from Congs, had been obliged to incur
expences for their defence without previous sanction, ought to be
placed on the same footing with those which had obtained this
security; but he could not agree to put them on a better which
wd. be the case if their expenses should be sanctioned in the lump;
he proposed therefore that these expenses sd. be limited to such as
had been incurred in a necessary defence; and of which the object
in each case should be approved by Congress.

Mr. Madison agreed that the expressions in the paragh were
very loose, & that it wd. be proper to make them as definite as the
case wd admit; he supposed however that all operations agst the
enemy within the limits assigned to the U. S. might be considered
as defensive, & in that view the expedition agst Penobscot might
be so called. He observed that the term necessary left a discretion
in the Judge as well as the term reasonable; and that it wd be
best perhaps for Congress to determine & declare that they
wd constitute a tribunal of impartial persons to decide on oath as
to the propriety of claims of States not authorized heretofore
by Congs. He sd this wd be a better security to the States &
wd be more satisfactory than the decisions of Congs, the members
of wch did not act on oath, & brought with them the Spirit of advocates
for their respective States rather than of impartial judges
between them. He moved that the clause with Mr. Wilson's
proposition be recommitted; which was agreed to without
opposition.

(11 & 12 Paraghs.) Mr. Bland opposed it: sd. that the value
of land was the best rule, and that at any rate no change sd be attempted
untill its practicability sd be tried.

Mr. Madison thought the value of land, could never be justly
or satisfactorily obtained; that it wd ever be a source of contentions
among the States, and that as a repetition of the valuation
would be within the course of the 25 years, it wd unless exchanged
for a more simple rule mar the whole plan.

Mr. Ghorham was in favr of the paraghs. He represented in
strong terms the inequality & clamors produced by valuations of
land in the State of Massts & the probability of the evils being increased
among the States themselves which were less tied together
& more likely to be jealous of each other.

Mr. Williamson was in favr of the paraghs.

Mr. Wilson was strenuous in favor of it, sd he was in Congs
when the Articles of Confederation directing a valuation of land
were agreed to, that it was the effect of the impossibility of compromising
the different ideas of the Eastern & Southern States as
to the value of Slaves compared with the Whites, the alternative
in question.

Mr. Clarke was in favor of them. He said that he was also in
Congs when this article was decided that the Southern States
wd have agreed to numbers, in preference to the value of land if
1/2 their Slaves only sd be included; but that the Eastern States
would not concur in that proposition.

It was agreed on all sides that, instead of fixing the proportion
by ages, as the report proposed it would be best to fix the proportion
in absolute numbers. With this view & that the blank might
be filled up, the clause was recommitted.