Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

This able man, after considerably improving the national revenue, was displaced; but such was the importance of the officer, that he has been restored again.

The honorable gentleman, said he, from South Carolina, (Mr. TUCKER,) has asked why we did not make a similar provision in the case of the Departments of Foreign Affairs, and of War, to assist the President. If he had consulted the Constitution, he would have found it unnecessary, because it is there made the duty of the heads of department to answer the inquiries of the President in writing. It is the proper business of this House to originate revenue laws; but as we want information to act upon, we must procure it where it is to be had, consequently we must get it out of this officer, and the best way of doing so, must be by making it his duty to bring it forward.

I do not contend for a word; if the spirit of the clause is retained, I am satisfied.

Mr. BALDWIN.-I do not see what we are guarding against by striking out the words, unless gentlemen mean to go so far as to introduce a prohibitory clause, and declare that the Secretary of the Treasury shall be restrained from digesting or preparing plans for the improvement of the revenue. If there is any evil in having him attend to this branch of the business, I cannot see how to avoid it. Suppose the officer is a bad man, and there are others like him in this House, (for this must be what the gentlemen are afraid of ;) and suppose he has prepared a scheme for peculation, which he hopes to get adopted by making dupes of the honest part; how are you to hinder it from being brought forward? Cannot his friends introduce it as their own, by making and seconding a motion for that purpose? Will you restrain him from having access to the members out of doors? And cannot he infuse his dangerous and specious arguments and information into them as well in the closet as by a public and official communication? But, Mr. Chairman, can this House, or if it can, will it, prevent any of their constituents from bringing before them plans for the relief of grievances or oppressions? Every individual of the community can bring business before us by petition, memorial, or remonstrance, provided it be done in a decent manner. How then do you propose to restrain the Secretary of the Treasury? I think the clause is very well as it stands, and shall therefore be against the amendment.

Mr. PAGE's motion for striking out the clause being put and negatived,

The question on Mr. FITZSIMONS's motion to amend the bill, by striking out the word "report," and inserting prepare, was taken and carried by a great majority.

After which the House adjourned.

FRIDAY, June 26.

SATURDAY, June 27.

[H. OF R.

The engrossed bill for establishing the Department of War was read the third time, passed, and sent to the Senate for its concurrence.

REVENUE BILL.

Mr. BOUDINOT, from the managers on the part of this House in the conference with the Senate, on the subject of the amendments to the Impost bill, reported that the conference had agreed to pass the bill as amended by the Senate, with some additional amendments, viz: the duty on distilled spirits of Jamaica proof, to be reduced from fifteen cents to ten cents per gallon. The duty on all other spirits to be reduced from twelve to eight cents per gallon. The duty on beer, ale, porter, or cider, imported in casks, from eight to five cents per gallon. The duty on beer imported in bottles, from twenty-five to twenty cents per gallon. The duty on coal from three to two cents per bushel.

TONNAGE BILL.

Mr. BOUDINOT reported further with respect to the Tonnage bill, and the House agreed to the Senate's amendment in the third section, whereby foreign vessels are allowed to carry goods coast wise, upon paying fifty cents per ton at each entry.

And in the first section, whereby all ships built within the United States, and afterwards sold to foreigners, pay twenty cents per ton at each entry less than if such vessel had been built in a foreign country.

The House then took up the amendment proposing to strike out the clause discriminating between the tonnage of vessels belonging to nations in treaty, and those not in treaty.

On this clause it was observed by Mr. MADISON, that nothing had been urged at the conference, by the managers on the part of the Senate, in favor of this amendment, but what had been repeated over and over again, by the opponents to the clause in its original form, in this House. But it was not contended by the Senate, that the principle was improper; so far from it, they thought some measure of a similar tendency to be necessary, and were inclined to take the subject up, but on a different scale, and to extend it further than the House had hitherto contemplated. He had, however, some doubts whether it would not be more prudent to adopt the moderate style of the bill, than apply to rasher expedients; if the end could be attained, without departing from the principles of moderation, it would redound to the honor of the Government; but, at all events, it was prudent to begin with measures of this temper; if they were found ineffectual, it might then be time enough to attempt more coercive regulations. For these reasons he was in favor of the bill as it stood, without the Senate's amendment. There was another circumstance that had con

A number of members attending the interest-siderable weight on his mind; it was universally ing conference which to-day took place with the Senate on the impost and tonnage bills, no business was done in this House.

admitted, that something ought to be done this session, both for the dignity of the United States, and to answer the high expectation of the people;

[blocks in formation]

but if the proposed discrimination be relinquished, there is little probability of any other plan being adopted, inasmuch as the time of both Houses will be fully occupied in organizing the Government, and cannot, without some inconvenience, be diverted to any other object. Yet, if it should so happen, that the plan proposed by the Senate can be gone through, the law may contain a clause for repealing this part of the Tonnage bill, and no inconvenience will arise.

Mr. LAWRENCE presumed, if the question was not carried for striking out the discriminating clause, the bill would be lost; and as it was a matter of great consequence in the scale of revenue, he wished to show the part he took, and would call for the yeas and nays, if he was supported.

Mr. VINING declared, with much decision, that he would rather the bill should be lost than passed without a discriminating clause. He had listened to the arguments used at the conference yesterday with the greatest attention, and a mind open to conviction, and had discovered that the good of the country required the absolute adoption of the principle. He was by no means actuated by resentment to Britain for her former usage; she had pursued what she took to be her interest; and we, as an independent nation, have a right to do the same. He hoped a majority of this House would join with the voice of their constituents, and contend for discrimination to the last.

Mr. JACKSON had also attended the conference, and with a disposition similar to that declared by the honorable gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. VINING,) but his convictions were directly the reverse. The proposed discrimination would irritate the nation against whom it is aimed, without being of any service to us. He thought the idea a mistaken one, though several States had adopted it. The State he represented, among the rest, pursued this plan of increasing the shipping; but he was bold to say that not a single French vessel had been induced to come to Georgia, in consequence of the favor shown them by the discrimination; but the planter had paid the additional impost on all the British shipping they employed. He apprehended the same consequences would result from this clause, and therefore joined with the Senate in striking it out.

Mr. FITZSIMONS did not mean to go into any argument on this subject, but he thought it necessary for the United States to meet the regulations of Britain with other regulations; for that reason he wished the bill to pass as it went from the House; but if the Senate, or any other member of this House, thought proper to come forward with a more effectual plan, he would give it his support, and then repeal this part of the present bill. Yet he should be extremely sorry to lose the bill, as it was essential to the mercantile interest in the United States; for without the bill English ships would pay no more duty than

our own.

Mr. SHERMAN was well convinced there was a large and decided majority in both Houses, and that it was the universal voice of the Union that

[June, 1789.

America should meet commercial restrictions with commercial restrictions; but there might be some disagreement about the best way to effect this point. He did not think it the voice of the people that Congress should lay the commerce of a nation under disadvantages, merely because we had no treaty with them. It could not appear a solid reason in the minds of gentlemen, if they considered the subject carefully; therefore it was not the proper principle for the Government to act upon. He would mention one that appeared to him more equitable, namely, lay a heavy duty upon all goods coming from any port or territory to which the vessels of the United States are denied access; this would strike directly at objects which the honorable gentleman had in view, without glancing upon other ports to which we are allowed access.

Mr. LIVERMORE approved the bill as it went up originally; but since there was great danger of losing it by persisting in the discrimination, he would accede to the Senate's amendment, hoping that something more effectual might be fallen upon; in the mean time he consoled himself with the advantage the amendment procured to the revenue, for it was intended by the House to charge our allies but thirty cents per ton, whereas the Senate have set them all equal at fifty cents per ton.

Mr. MOORE favored the principle of discrimination, but feared if it were laid on tonnage it would operate unequally, those States paying most who employed the greatest quantity of foreign shipping.

Mr. GOODHUE proposed to let the tonnage bill lie on the table, in order to give the Senate an opportunity of originating a bill on the subject of discrimination, which the Committee of Conference had informed them was in contemplation. If the House consented to this, they might have their choice of the two schemes, and prefer the most eligible.

Mr. MADISON agreed to this expedient, though he doubted if any thing better could be procured. He should regret the loss of the bill, but he would be extremely sorry to give up the point. The House had shown a spirit of accommodation by giving up the discrimination in the impost bill on brandy and spirits; and he believed it was on the principle of adhering more firmly to it in the bill now before them; he hoped, therefore, if the question was taken, that they would decide the point as they had hitherto done.

The question was put, by consent, on Mr. GooDHUE's proposition for letting the bill lie on the table; which being rejected

The motion for agreeing with the Senate being about to be taken, Mr. LAWRENCE withdrew his call for the yeas and nays; whereupon it was decided in the usual manner; and there were twenty-five in favor of the motion, and twenty-six against it. So the question was lost. Adjourned.

MONDAY, June 29.

A petition from William Finnie, deputy quar

[blocks in formation]

termaster general in the Southern Department during the late war, was read, praying a reimbursement of moneys expended by him in the public service.-Ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. GOODHUE, from the committee to whom the collection bill was committed, reported, that the committee had prepared an entire new bill as an amendment and substitute to the former one, which was read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole.

A message from the Senate informed the House that they agree to the amendments proposed by the House to the Senate's amendments to the Impost bill.

Mr. SCOTT moved to take up the report of the committee appointed to consider and report the state of the unappropriated lands in the Western Territory, observing to the House that the Treasury bill embraced this matter, and he wished them to have the whole subject fairly before them, so as to connect it in a satisfactory manner. Mr. BENSON wished the business of the Western Territory to lie over till the Treasury bill was gone through.

Mr. SEDGWICK reminded gentlemen, that their attention had been called to the Treasury business last, and it would be best to finish it before they went upon fresh matter.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT.

Mr. SCOTT's motion being negatived, the House went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. TRUMBULL in the Chair, on the Treasury bill.

On motion of Mr. VINING, the following words were struck out, being part of the powers assigned to the Secretary of the Treasury, "to conduct the sale of the lands belonging to the United States, in such a manner as he shall be by law directed;" and afterwards these were inserted, "to execute such services respecting the sale of the lands of the United States, as may by law be required of

him."

Mr. BURKE gave notice that he meant to bring in a clause to be added to the bill to prevent any of the persons appointed to execute the offices created by this bill from being directly or indirectly concerned in commerce, or in speculating in the public funds, under a high penalty, and being deemed guilty of a high crime or misde

meanor.

Mr. MADISON observed, that the committee had gone through the bill without making any provision respecting the tenure by which the Comptroller is to hold his office. He thought it was a point worthy of consideration, and would, therefore, submit a few observations upon it.

It will be necessary, said he, to consider the nature of this office, to enable us to come to a right decision on the subject; in analyzing its properties, we shall easily discover they are not purely of an Executive nature. It seems to me that they partake of a Judiciary quality as well as Executive; perhaps the latter obtains in the greatest degree. The principal duty seems to be deciding upon the lawfulness and justice of

[H. of R.

the claims and accounts subsisting between the United States and particular citizens: this partakes strongly of the judicial character, and there may be strong reasons why an officer of this kind should not hold his office at the pleasure of the Executive branch of the Government. I am inclined to think that we ought to consider him something in the light of an arbitrator between the public and individuals, and that he ought to hold his office by such a tenure as will make him responsible to the public generally; then again it may be thought, on the other side, that some persons ought to be authorized on behalf of the individual, with the usual liberty of referring to a third person, in case of disagreement, which may throw some embarrassment in the way of the first idea.

Whatever, Mr. Chairman, may be my opinion with respect to the tenure by which an Executive officer may hold his office according to the meaning of the Constitution, I am very well satisfied, that a modification by the Legislature may take place in such as partake of the judicial qualities, and that the legislative power is sufficient to establish this office on such a footing as to answer the purposes for which it is prescribed.

With this view he would move proposition, to be inserted in the bill; it was that the Comptroller should hold his office during years, unless sooner removed by the President: lature, by reason of the power of impeachment; he will always be dependent upon the Legisbut he might be made still more so, when the the person re-appointable at the expiration of the House took up the Salary bill. He would have term, unless he was disqualified by a conviction on an impeachment before the Senate; by this the President, because he can be removed by him; means the Comptroller would be dependent upon he will be dependent upon the Senate, because they must consent to his election for every term of years; and he will be dependent upon this the power we shall reserve over his salary; House, through the means of impeachment, and by which means we shall effectually secure the But making him thus thoroughly dependent, dependence of this officer upon the Government. would make it necessary to secure his impartiality, with respect to the individual. This might be effected by giving any person, who conceived himself aggrieved, a right to petition the Supreme Court for redress, and they should be empowered to do right therein; this will enable the individual to carry his claim before an independent tribunal.

A provision of this kind exists in two of the United States at this time, and is found to answer a very good purpose. He mentioned this, that gentlemen might not think it altogether novel. The committee, he hoped, would take a little time to examine the idea.

Mr. STONE thought it necessary to have time allowed the committee for considering the proposition; it was perfectly novel to him, and he dared to say the same of many other members; but, at the first view, he thought he saw several objec

[blocks in formation]

tions to it. As the Comptroller was an inferior officer, his appointment might be vested in the President by the Legislature; but, according to the determination which had already taken place, it did not necessarily follow that he should have the power of dismissal; and before it was given, its propriety ought to be apparent. He did not know whether the office should be held during good behaviour, as the gentleman proposed; for if it was intended to be held during a term of years, and then the officer to be reappointed, if he had not been convicted on impeachment, it would be tantamount to holding it during all the time he behaved well. But he thought all officers, except the judges, should hold their offices during pleasure. He also thought it unnecessary to consider the Comptroller as a judge, and give, by an express clause in the bill, a right to the complainant to appeal from his decision. He considered this as the right of every man, upon the principles of common law, therefore securing it by the statute would be a work of supererogation.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, approved the idea of having the Comptroller appointed for limited time, but thought during that time he ought to be independent of the Executive, in order that he might not be influenced by that branch of the Govornment in his decisions.

Mr. SEDGWICK did not rise to oppose the measure, but to suggest some doubts of its effects. The first was, as mentioned by the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. STONE,) that the officer would hold his office by the firm tenure of good behaviour, inasmuch as he was to be reappointed at the expiration of the first term, and so on.

Mr. MADISON begged the gentlemen would excuse him for this interruption, but he suspected he was misapprehended; he said the officer should be reappointable at the expiration of the term-not reappointed.

Mr. SEDGWICK acknowledged he had misunderstood the gentleman; but, as he had now explained himself, he did not see that the proposition came up to the intention he had expressed: so far from making him independent, as a judge ought to be, it subjected him to more subordination than any other officer.

He also conceived that a majority of the House had decided that all officers concerned in Executive business should depend upon the will of the President for their continuance in office; and with good reason, for they were the eyes and arms of the principal Magistrate, the instruments of execution. Now the office of Comptroller seemed to bear a strong affinity to this branch of the GovernHe is to provide for the regular and punctual payment of all moneys which may be collected, and to direct prosecutions for delinquencies; he is to preserve the public accounts, to countersign warrants, and to report to the Secretary. These are important Executive duties, and the man who has to perform them ought, he thought, to be dependent upon the President.

ment.

He did not mean, by what he said, to give a decided opinion, but merely to suggest for consid

[JUNE, 1789.

eration some doubts which had arisen in his mind since the subject was introduced.

Mr. BENSON did not like the object of the motion, because it was, in some measure, setting afloat the question which had already been carried. He wished there might be some certainty in knowing what was the tenure of offices; he thought they were well fixed now, if nothing more was done with the question. The judges hold theirs during good behaviour, as established by the Constitution; all others, during pleasure. He was afraid that the present motion would lead to a different construction from the one lately adopted; by devices of this kind, he apprehended the Legislature might overthrow the Executive power; he would therefore vote against it, if it were not withdrawn.

Mr. MADISON did not wish a decision on the subject, further than gentlemen were prepared. When I was up before, said he, I endeavored to show that the nature of this office differed from the others upon which the House had decided; and, consequently, that a modification might take place, without interfering with the former distinction; so that it cannot be said we depart from the spirit of the Constitution.

Several arguments were adduced to show the Executive Magistrate had Constitutionally a right to remove subordinate officers at pleasure. Among others it was urged, with some force, that these officers were merely to assist him in the performance of duties, which, from the nature of man, he could not execute without them, although he had an unquestionable right to do them if he were able; but I question very much whether he can or ought to have any interference in the settling and adjusting the legal claims of indiexamination and decision in such cases partake viduals against the United States. The necessary too much of the Judicial capacity to be blended with the Executive. I do not say the office is either Executive or Judicial; I think it rather distinct from both, though it partakes of each, and therefore some modification, accommodated to those circumstances, ought to take place. I would, therefore, make the officer responsible to every part of the Government.

Surely the Legislature have the right to limit the salary of any officer; if they have this, and the power of establishing offices at discretion, it can never be said that, by limiting the tenure of an office, we devise schemes for the overthrow of the Executive department.

If gentlemen will consult the true spirit and scope of the Constitution, they will perhaps find my propositions not so obnoxious as some seem to think. I did not bring it forward for immediate decision; I am very willing to let it lie over for further consideration.

The committee rose and reported progress, after which the House adjourned.

TUESDAY, June 30.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT.

The House again went into a Committee of the

[blocks in formation]

Whole on the bill establishing the Treasury Department, Mr. TRUMBULL in the Chair.

Mr. MADISON withdrew the proposition which he yesterday laid upon the table; and Mr. BURKE introduced his additional clause, which, after some alteration and addition proposed by Mr. FITZSIMONS and others, was made part of the bill. The committee then rose, and reported the bill, with the proposed amendments, which were ordered to lie on the table.

WEDNESDAY, July 1.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT.

The House took up the report of the Committee of the Whole on the bill establishing the Treasury Department; when the several proposed amendments were agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

TONNAGE BILL.

A message was received from the Senate, informing the House that they had concurred with the House in an amendment, (by which the wording of the bill was somewhat altered,) but that they adhered to their amendment for striking out the discrimination in favor of the shipping of our allies, and against others.

The House proceeded to the consideration of the said message.

Mr. SHERMAN observed, that the House had the ultimatum of the Senate'; therefore all that remained was for the House to decide.

Mr. PAGE owned this to be a necessary bill, but necessary as it was, he would sooner lose it than renounce the doctrine contained in the contested clause.

Mr. FITZSIMONS saw, if the House persisted any further, that the bill would be lost; from a knowledge of this fact, he was induced to adopt the Senate's amendment; but he left them to answer for the consequences to their constituents and to the world. If gentlemen would take a retrospective view, they would see that the House had done all that was incumbent upon them to carry a measure through, which they conceived to be essential to the national interest; they had insisted upon their determination; they had adhered to their opinion; and now they were reduced to the alternative of losing the bill, or foregoing their sentiments. In this dilemma, he thought it best to accede to the proposition of the Senate, because the provision which this bill contained was all that the mercantile interest got for the sacrifices they had made in the Impost bill. They certainly expected some advantages from another part of the system, when they assented to pay all the duties in advance by way of impost.

Mr. VINING hoped, as the gentlemen had stood firm in three trials upon this point against the Senate, they would persevere to the end. He said it would be committing the dignity of the House to recede from an opinion they had so often solemnly declared, without any new argument being offered against them. But was it true that nothing could be done if the bill was lost? Could I

[H. of R.

not the subject be taken up in another, or might not the bill lie over for two or three weeks, in order to compare it with the discrimination intended by the Senate? But if the decision now took place, he hoped it would be as heretofore, otherwise it might be considered that the House was under the government of the Senate, and adopted their opinions without arguments being offered to convince their judgments. He would not add a syllable on the propriety of the measure, because it was well understood.

Mr. SDDGWICK said, he was informed there was a very considerable majority in the Senate in favor of the amendment, and reminded the House there was but a majority of one on this floor when the bill was last before them. If, said he, we set out with a determination that a bill shall be lost, unless the whole body of the Senate will submit to a majority of one in this House, the whole Legislative business must cease; because it is hardly possible that an independent body will submit in this manner.

The point in dispute is not, as has been intimated, the most important in the bill, which contains a discrimination in favor of our own navigation against all foreigners whomsoever; the other object is, a discrimination between foreign nations. In the first and primary object, the Senate agree with the House: in the second, they only differ in the mode. If we would defend ourselves, and be really independent of foreign nations, we ought to make the first species of discrimination; but it does not follow that we ought to sacrifice this advantage because we cannot attain the other. Nor can acting on the principles of conciliation be beneath the dignity of this House. There is a particular virtue in moderation; it often gains where it seems to lose. We may relinquish the discrimination in this bill, and bring forward another, in which we can contend for it without prejudice to any other concern.

The question was now reduced to this: whether we should prefer a small advantage to a great one? Whether the whole revenue arising from the foreign navigation should be given up for the sake of exercising a fanciful predilection and preference for one foreign nation over another?

Mr. STONE.-The Constitution supposes that the two branches of the Legislature may disagree, because it gives both Houses the power of proposing or concurring with amendments. If they have not this power, whenever the two Houses disagree, the business would be at an end. The same consequence would result from the doctrine advanced by the honorable gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. VINING.) If it was honorable to adhere, neither House ought to retract its opinion; but while the gentleman made this an argument in favor of our determination, what is to become of the honor and dignity of the Senate? Certainly he intends to compel them to make a sacrifice of it to what he thinks the public good. If this opinion is well founded, it must happen in every case of disappointment, where a law is passed by an accommodation, that one or both branches are dishonored.

« AnteriorContinuar »