Notes on Debates, 25 January 1783
Notes on Debates
MS (LC: Madison Papers). For a description of the manuscript of Notes on Debates, see , V, 231–34.
The Secy. of Congress havg. suggested to a member that the Contract with the Ct. of France specifying the sums Due from the U. S. altho’ extremely generous on the part of the former had been ratifyed without any such acknowledgmts. by the latter, that this was the first instance in which such acknowlegts. had been omitted, & that the omission wd. be singularly improper at a time when we were Soliciting further aids; these observations being made to Congress, the ratification was reconsidered, and the words “impressed with &c… inserted.1
The rept on the memorial was resumed. By Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Fitzimmons & one or two others who had conversed with Mr. Morris on the change of the last day of Decr. for the day of Augst.2 it was suggested that the change entirely contravened the measures pursued by his department;3 and moved for a reconsideration of it in order to enquire into the subject. Without going into details they urged this as a reason sufficient. The Eastern delegates, altho’ they wished for unanimity & system in future proceedings relative to our funds & finances were very stiff in retaining the vote wch. coincided with the steps taken by their Constituents.4 Of this much complaint was made. Mr. Rutlidge on this occasion alledging that Congress ought not to be led by general suggestions derived from the office of finance joined by Mr. Gervais, voted agst. the reconsideration. The consequence was th[a]t S. Carola. was divided & six votes only in favr. of the Reconsideration.5 Mr. Hamilton havg. expressed his regret at the negative & explained more exactly the interference of the change of the Epoch with the measures & plans of the Office of Finance wch. had limited all State advances & settlemts. to Aug: 1780; Mr. Rutledge acknowledged the sufficiency of the reasons & at his instance the latter date was reinstated. On this 2d. question Cont. also voted for Augst. .6
The day of August being re-instated before question on the whole paragraph was taken Mr. Ghorum objected to the word “general” before funds as ambiguous, and it was struck out; not however as improper if referring to all the States, & not to all objects of taxation. Without this word the clause passed unanimously, even Rhode Island concurring in it.7
Congress proceeded to the 3d. clause, relative to the commutation of half pay.8 A motion was made by Mr. Hamilton to fill the blank with “Six.” this was in conformity to tables of Dr. Price, estimating the officers on the average of good lives.9 Liberality in the rate was urged by several as necessary to give Satisfaction & prevent a refusal of the offer. For this motion there were 6 ayes 5 noes; the Southern States & N.Y. being in the affirmative the Eastern & N.J. in the negative. Col: Bland proposed 6½. erroneously supposing the negative of 6. to have proceeded from its being too low.10 It was on the contrary rather doubtful whether the East: States wd. concur in any arrangemt. on this head; so averse were they to what they call pensions. Several having calculated that the annual amount of half-pay was between 4 & 500,000 Drs, and the interest of the gross sum funded at the rate of 6 years, nearly 2/3 of that sum,11 Congress were struck with the necessity of proceeding with more caution & for that purpose committed the report to a Committee of 5. Mr. Osgood, Mr. Fitzimmons, Mr. Gervais, Mr. Hamilton & Mr. Wilson.12
on the motion of Mr. Wilson Monday next was assigned for the consideration of the Resolu: in the 2d. clause of the Rept. on the Memorial from the army. He observed that this was necessary to prevent the resolution from being like many others—vox et preterea nihil.13
1. On 22 January 1783 Congress ratified the contract, concluded between Franklin and the Comte de Vergennes on 16 July 1782, “for ascertaining the sums of money advanced on loan by his Majesty to the United States, and settling the terms of payment.” As printed in the official journal of 22 January the first sentence of the ratifying statement includes the insertion of 25 January, mentioned by JM: “Now Know Ye, That we the said United States in Congress assembled, impressed with a most lively sense of the generosity and affection manifested by his Most Christian Majesty in the above contract, have ratified and confirmed, and by these presents do ratify and confirm the said contract, and every article and clause thereof” (, XXIV, 63–64). Charles Thomson, the “Secy,” may have justified his suggestion by citing the “acknowledgmts,” among others, of 4 May 1778, 13 June 1781, and 8 February 1782 (, XI, 457–58; XX, 638–39; XXII, 68–70). For JM’s recognition of the generosity of King Louis XVI, see , V, 157, 159. For the need to seek additional loans from him, see ibid., V, 99; JM Notes, 9–10 Jan., and n. 14; 13 Jan. 1783.
2. JM Notes, 24 Jan. 1783, and nn. 32, 39.
3. Robert Morris’ efforts to effect a financial accounting with each state and his confidential plans to secure money to pay the army were premised, insofar as the debt owed the officers and troops was concerned, upon the resolution of 12 August 1780 (, XVII, 725–26; JM Notes, 7 Jan. 1783, and n. 4). For the general context of Morris’ objection to the change of date, see Clarence L. Ver Steeg, Robert Morris, pp. 165–66.
5. The official journal of Congress for 25 January records no tally.
6. , XXIV, 94. See also n. 3, above. Following the dots, JM wrote, “*Insert the note with this mark here, from last page.” The editors have followed his directions and also omitted the asterisk with which he began the paragraph on the “last page” of his notes for 25 January.
7. In the official journal “the whole paragraph” is broken into two paragraphs, both bearing upon the second article of the army memorial relating to “A settlement of accounts of the arrearages of pay and security for what is due.” The first of the two paragraphs centered upon “the arrearages” and contained the date which had been at issue. The second paragraph, after agreeing that all the creditors of the United States had “an undoubted right to expect” security for their repayment, pledged that Congress would “make every effort in their power” to obtain “substantial funds, adequate to the object of funding the whole debt” and would “enter upon an immediate and full consideration of the nature of such funds, and the most likely mode of obtaining them” (, XXIV, 93–95). In his notes of 24 January 1783 (q.v.), JM combined the paragraphs.
Unlike the text printed in the official journal, the much corrected manuscript of the report, in Hamilton’s hand, shows a deleted “general and” before “substantial funds” (NA: PCC, No. 21, fols. 319–22). The objection of Nathaniel Gorham to the inclusion of the adjective “general” may have resulted from concern lest other delegates subsequently point to the word as a pledge justifying a revival of the 5 per cent impost amendment with its provisions unchanged. See JM Notes, 29 Jan. 1783. The vote of the Rhode Island delegates especially impressed JM in view of their recent insistence that foreign loans would supply sufficient income and in view of the refusal of their state to ratify the proposed 5 per cent impost amendment to the Articles of Confederation. See , V, 372; 374, n. 12; 407, n. 1.
8. The committee proposed that any officer entitled to half pay for life after the war should be allowed to choose whether he preferred this guarantee or one of full pay for an unspecified number of years, to begin one year following the termination of the struggle (, XXIV, 95).
9. A pamphlet entitled Observations on the Expectations of Lives, the increase of mankind, the influence of great towns on population, and particularly the state of London, with respect to healthfulness and number of inhabitants … written by Richard Price (1723–1791) and published in 1769 in London. Price, a moral and political philosopher, dissenting clergyman in London, and opponent of British policies toward America before the Revolution, was a close friend of Benjamin Franklin and wrote this essay in the form of a letter to him. By “good lives,” JM meant those who were likely to live at least to the term assigned as the average expectation at their ages (Oxford English Dictionary [1933 ed.], VI, 261). According to Major General Henry Knox, the subcommittee reported to the grand committee “that twelve years was a mean life of the ages of the officers of the Army, and that six whole years’ pay was equal, to the country and the army, to the half-pay for life” (JM Notes, 24 Jan. 1783, n. 25; , VII, 35 n.).
10. Hamilton’s motion, its defeat, and Bland’s proposal are not mentioned in the official journal.
11. The committee proposed an interest rate of 6 per cent annually on “good funded security” (, XXIV, 95). If the annual “gross sum” of full pay is taken to be $800,000, the interest on this sum for six years would be $288,000 or slightly over two-thirds of the annual half-pay estimated at $400,000.
12. Lacking enough “precise information,” the grand committee requested more time before making recommendations on the army memorial’s fourth and fifth articles asking, respectively, for “A settlement of the accounts of deficiencies of rations and compensation” and “A settlement of the accounts of deficiencies of clothing and compensation” (, XXIV, 93–95). The matter referred to Samuel Osgood’s committee was the unresolved issue of the commutation of half pay for life into full pay for a controversial number of years (JM Notes, 4 Feb. 1783). After “Mr. Wilson,” JM wrote, “( Insert here the note with this mark.” The editors accordingly have inserted after “Mr. Wilson” the paragraph which JM prefaced with “this mark” at the close of his notes for 25 January.
13. “A voice and nothing more.” Upon James Wilson’s motion, Congress agreed to consider on 27 January “the means of obtaining from the several states substantial funds, for funding the whole debt of the United States” (n. 7, above; , XXIV, 95; JM Notes, 27 Jan. 1783).