Notes on Debates, 7 January 1783
Notes on Debates
MS (LC: Madison Papers). For a description of the manuscript of Notes on Debates, see , V, 231–34.
See the Journals1
In the evening the grand Committee had the assigned conference with Mr. Morris who informed them explicitly that it was impossible to make any advance of pay in the present State of the finances to the army and imprudent to give any assurances with respect to future pay until certain funds should be previously established.2 He observed that even if an advance cd. be made it wd. be unhappy that it sd. appear to be the effect of demands from the army; as this precedent3 could not fail to inspire a distrust of the spontaneous justice of Congress & to produce repetitions of the expedient. He said that he had taken some measures with a view to a payment for the army which depended on events not within our command, tha[t] he had communicated these measures to Genl Washington under an injunction of secrecy,4 and that he could not as yet disclose them without endangering their success: that the situation of our affairs within his department was so alarming that he had thoughts of asking Congress to appoint a Confidential Committee to receive communications5 on that subject and to sanctify by their advice such steps as ought to be taken. Much loose conversation passed on the critical state of things the defect of a permanent revenue, & the consequences to be apprehended from a disappointment of the mission from the army; which ended in the appointment of friday evening next for an audience to General McDougal, Col. Brooks & Col. Ogden6 the Deputies on the subject of the Memorial, the Superintendt. to be present.7
1. JM misdated these notes by one year. Confining his record for 7 January to the evening meeting of the grand committee to which Congress had referred the memorial of officers in Washington’s army, JM suggested by this entry that the printed journal adequately summarized the proceedings of Congress during the day. The delegates devoted most of that session to another unsuccessful effort to agree upon the exchange ratio between specie and depreciated continental paper currency for settling “the accounts of the several states, and of individuals therein, against the United States.” The long discussion, interspersed with four indecisive tallied polls, was upon a report of another grand committee, of which JM was also a member. In the polls, JM voted against postponing consideration of the report, against having each state separately determine a ratio which would “render the most substantial justice,” and against both a 1-to-40 and a 1-to-75 ratio (, XXIV, 38–42). JM may have neglected to summarize the arguments pro and con on each proposal because they largely duplicated those recorded in his Notes on Debates for 7 December 1782, when the same issues were debated (, V, 377–78).
2. JM Notes, 6 Jan. 1783, and nn. 2, 9. By “certain” Robert Morris (or JM) meant “assured” funds.
3. JM interlineated the last two syllables of this word and canceled “clamorous,” which he originally had written between “of” and “demands.” Even though Morris may have used the adjective, JM perhaps decided to delete it because he had found that the “representations” in the memorial reflected “a proper spirit and are full of good sense” (, V, 473).
4. The “measures” which Morris mentioned but did not reveal to the grand committee were those which, under an injunction of secrecy, he had communicated in cipher to Washington on 16 October 1782. Hoping to sell “bills of exchange to the amount of half a million dollars” in Havana, Morris assured Washington that “a part of the money shall be applied as pay” for the army (LC: Washington Papers). In acting with “the profoundest secrecy,” Morris relied for his exoneration by Congress upon its resolution of 3 July 1781, reading: “That the superintendant of finance be and he is hereby empowered to pursue such measures as he may think proper for exporting and importing goods, money and other articles, at the risque and for the account of the United States, at such times and in such manner as he shall deem necessary and useful to the public service” (, XX, 721; NA: PCC, No. 137, II, 287).
It was late in November 1782 before John Brown of Philadelphia, as Morris’ agent for executing the transaction, was able to sail for Havana in the newly built merchant ship, “Duc de Lauzun,” which Morris had purchased and loaded with flour and “Salted Provisions.” Although Morris, in his capacity as agent of marine, had bought the vessel for the United States, he and probably Thomas FitzSimons appear to have been the joint owners of the flour. The “salted provisions” were army rations which had deteriorated through being held too long (NA: PCC, No. 137, II, 283–86). Morris directed Brown to sell the cargo and a maximum of $200,000 worth of bills of exchange in Havana. Morris trusted that these bills would be honored in the first instance by a firm of merchants in Cadiz. Upon receipt, they would forward the bills to Paris for acceptance by a banking house, which would be reimbursed by the bankers in Amsterdam who were floating a loan on behalf of the United States (NA: PCC, No. 137, II, 291–320; , V, 450, n. 5). Morris apparently did not know until late in March 1783, when the frigate “Alliance” docked at Philadelphia, that though Brown had sold the flour and “salted provisions” for $72,447, the agent had failed in his principal mission. In Morris’ words, “some persons in the Havanna discredited the Bills and finally prevented the sale of them” (NA: PCC, No. 137, II, 279–80). For the many documents occasioned by the planning and execution of this complicated affair, see ibid., No. 137, II, 279–334.
5. See JM Notes, 9–10 Jan. 1783, for emphasis upon the need for secrecy.