Notes on Debates, 4 February 1783
Notes on Debates
MS (LC: Madison Papers). For a description of the manuscript of Notes on Debates, see , V, 231–34. Immediately above his entry for this day, JM wrote, “Saturday & Monday No Congress.”
An indecent & tart remonstrance was rcd. from Vermont agst. the interposition of Congs. in favor of the persons who had been banished & whose effects had been confiscated.1 A motion was made by Mr. Hamilton 2ded. by Mr. Dyer to commit it. Mr. Wolcot who had always patronized the case of Vermont wished to know the views of a committment.2 Mr. Hamilton said his view was to fulfill the resolution of Congress3 wch. bound them to enforce the measure. Mr. Dyer sd. his was that so dishonorable a menace might be as quickly as possible renounced. He said Genl. Washington was in favor of Vermont,4 that the principal people of N. England were all supporters of them, and that Congress ought to rectify the error into which they had been led, without longer exposing themselves to reproach on this subject. It was committed without dissent.5
Mr. Wilson informed Congress that the Legislature of Pena. having found the Ordinance of Congs. erecting a Court for piracies so obscure in some points that they were at a loss to adapt thr laws to it, had appointed a Come. to confer with a Come. of Congress. He accordingly moved in behalf of the Pa. delegation that a Come. might be appd. for that purpose. After some objections by Mr. Madison agst. the impropriety of holding a communication with Pa. through Committees when the purpose might be as well answered by a Memorial, or an instruction to its Delegates, a Come. was appd. consisting of Mr. Rutlidge, Mr. Madison & Mr. Wilson.6
The Report proposing a commutation for the half pay due to the army, was taken up.7 On a motion to allow 5½ years whole pay in gross to be funded & bear interest, this being the rate taken from Dr. Price’s calculation of annuities,8 N. H. was no, R. I. no Cont. no, N. J. no, Virginia ay [Mr. Lee no].—other States ay So the question was lost. 5 years was then proposed, on which N. H. was no, R. I. no, Ct. no N. J. no, so there were but 6 ays & the proposition was lost.9 Mr. Williamson proposed 5¼ & called for the yeas & nays. Messrs. Wolcot & Dyer observed tht they were bound by instructions on this subject. Mr. Arnold said the case was the same with him.10 They also queried the validity of the act of Congs. which had stipulated half pay to the army, as it had passed before the Confederation, and by a vote of less than seven States.11 Mr. Madison sd. that he wished if the yeas & nays were called it might be on the true calculation, and not on an arbitrary principle of compromise, as the latter standing singly on the journal wd. not express the true ideas of the yeas, and might even subject them to contrary interpretations. He sd. that the act was valid because it was decided according to the rule then in force,12 & that as the officers had served under the faith of it, justice fully corroborated it; & that he was astonished to hear these principles controverted. He was also astonished to hear objections agst. a commutation come from States in compliance with whose objections agst. the half pay itself, this expedt. had been substituted.13 Mr. Wilson expressed his surprise also that instructions sd. be given which militated agst. the most peremtory & lawful engagements of Congs. and said that if such a doctrine prevailed the authority of the Confederacy was at an end. Mr. Arnold said that he wished the report might not be decided on at this time, that the assembly of R. I. was in session, & he hoped to receive their further advice.14 Mr. Bland enforced the ideas of Mr. Madison & Mr. Wilson, Mr. Gilman thought it wd. be best to refer the subject of ½ pay to the several States to be settled between them & their respective lines.15 By general consent the Report lay over.
Mr. Lee communicated to Congress a letter he had received from Mr. Samuel Adams dated Boston Decr. 22, 1782, introducing Mr. from Canada, as a person capable of giving intelligence relative to affairs in Canada & the practicability of uniting that province with the Confederated States. The letter was committed.16
In Come. of the whole on the Report concerning a valuation of the lands of the U States—17 A motion was made by Mr. Rutlidge wch. took the sense of Congs. on this question whether the rule of apportionment to be grounded on the proposed valuation sd. continue in force untill revoked by Congs. or a period be now fixed beyond which it sd. not continue in force.18 The importance of the distinction lay in the necessity of having seven votes in every act of Congs. The Eastern States were generally for the latter, supposing that the Southern States being impoverished by the recent havoc of the enemy would be underrated in the first valuation. The Southern States were for the same reason interested in favor of the former:19 on the question there were 6 ays only, which produced a dispute whether in a committee of the whole a majority wd. decide, or whether 7 votes were necessary.
In favor of the first rule it was contended by Mr. Ghorum & others, that in Committees of Congress, the rule always is that a majority decides.
In favr. of the latter it was contended that if the rule of other committees applies to a come. of the whole the vote sd. be individual per capita as well as by a majority. that in other deliberative assemblies, the rules of voting &c were not varied in Committees of the whole, and that it wd. be inconvenient in practice to report to Congs as the sense of the body a measure approved by 4 or 5 States, since there could be no reason to hope that in the same body in a different form, 7 States wd. approve it, and consequently a waste of time would be the result.20
Come. rose21 & Cons Adjourned.
1. Governor Thomas Chittenden’s twenty-two page letter of 9 January 1783 from Bennington to President Elias Boudinot of Congress remonstrated against the resolutions of 5 December 1782 requiring the authorities of Vermont to permit banished settlers to return and resume possession of their confiscated estates (NA: PCC, No. 40, II, 351–61; , V, 274, nn. 1, 3; 351–52; 367, n. 2; 368, n. 3; 368–69; 388, n. 3; JM Notes, 15 Jan. 1783, and n. 4). Although Chittenden stated that the legislature of Vermont, when it convened on 13 February, would no doubt reply to the resolutions, he amply responded by accusing Congress of imitating Parliament before 1775 by trying unconstitutionally “to controul the internal Police and Government of this State”; of breaking its pledges of 7 and 21 August 1781 to admit Vermont to the Union if she would fulfill certain conditions, which since then she had fulfilled; and of endeavoring to force Vermont to tolerate within her borders such persons as Charles Phelps, “a notorious cheat and nuisance to Mankind.” Somewhat inconsistently, Chittenden closed his “tart” protest by “earnestly soliciting a Federal union with the United States, agreeable to the before recited preliminary agreement.” For this “agreement,” as embodied in the resolutions of 7 and 21 August 1781, see , XXI, 836–39, 892–93; Papers of James Madison, III, 224; 225, n. 11; 226, n. 13; V, 371, n. 15. For Charles Phelps, see ibid., V, 353, n. 15.
2. , VI, 285, 287, 308–9.
3. See n. 1.
4. In his remonstrance, Chittenden had included passages from Washington’s letter to him of 1 January 1782 as evidence that the commander-in-chief favored the independence of Vermont and her admittance into the Confederation (, XXIII, 419–22). After reading a printed copy of the remonstrance, Washington on 11 February 1783 sent a copy of his letter of 1 January 1782 to Congress to show that he had been quoted out of context by Chittenden (ibid., XXVI, 119–20).
5. The committee comprised Daniel Carroll, chairman, Nathaniel Gorham, Arthur Lee, John Taylor Gilman, and Oliver Wolcott (, XXIV, 108, n. 2). For the report of the committee, see , XXIV, 367, and n. 1.
6. On 1 February 1783 the Pennsylvania General Assembly appointed a committee to seek from Congress a clarification of the ordinance of 5 April 1781 for “establishing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas” (, XIX, 354–56). Following a conference between the two committees, Rutledge reported on 5 February 1783 that the question to which the Pennsylvania legislature requested an answer was whether the bench at the trial of an alleged offender against the ordinance must always include “a Judge of the Court of Admiralty” of the state having jurisdiction, or whether the bench could comprise only two or more “judges of the Court of Common Law in such State.” Congress on the same day returned this report to the committee with a directive “to report what is proper to be done” (, XXIV, 109–10, 110, n. 1). On 4 March 1783 Congress adopted an amendatory ordinance, drafted by Rutledge, stipulating that the bench should include two or more judges, of whom at least one must be a judge of the Court of Admiralty, “provided that nothing herein contained shall extend to prosecutions already commenced, which shall be determined in the same manner as if this ordinance had never been made” (, XXIV, 160, 164, and n. 1; Pa. Packet, 22 and 25 Mar. 1783).
7. This paragraph and the rest of the notes for this day, with the exception of the entry about the Adams-Lee letter, records a debate in the committee of the whole (, XXIV, 108). Prior to 4 February, Congress had last discussed the memorial from the army on 25 January. On that day a committee, with Samuel Osgood as chairman, had been appointed to recommend what should be done about the half-pay commutation issue (JM Notes, 24 Jan.; 25 Jan. 1783, and nn. 8–12). “The Report,” which had been submitted on 3 February, was that of the Osgood committee (NA: PCC, No. 186, fol. 80).
9. These votes which were taken in the committee of the whole are not recorded in the official journal. JM inserted the brackets around “Mr. Lee no.”
10. In its session of October 1782 the Rhode Island General Assembly had directed its delegates in Congress “to exert themselves against half pay to retiring officers, or to officers who shall continue in service during the war” (William R. Staples, Rhode Island in the Continental Congress, with the Journal of the Convention That Adopted the Constitution, 1765–1790 [Providence, 1870], p. 378). In a letter of 4 February 1783 to Governor William Greene, John Collins and Jonathan Arnold remarked that, although they were “extremely mortified to be told” that their predecessor, Ezekiel Cornell, had “fully and absolutely” committed Rhode Island “in favor of Half Pay,” they would obey their instructions, “and as the proposed commutation is a change in form and in name, rather than in nature and substance we shall oppose it” (, VII, 29–30). The stand of Cornell on the half-pay resolution, when it was adopted by Congress on 21 October 1780, had been ambiguous, but nearly two years later he sought evidence to demonstrate that he had opposed it (, XVIII, 958–59, 1100; , V, 425–26; VI, 405–9, 495, and its first n. 2).
In the spring of 1778 Eliphalet Dyer and Oliver Wolcott, together with the other delegates from Connecticut, had strenuously fought against a half-pay proposal—“the most painfull and disagreable question that hath ever been agitated in Congress” (ibid., III, 255–56; , XII, 1308, index under “Half pay to officers”). In February 1778 the Connecticut General Assembly instructed its delegates in Congress to move as an amendment to the proposed Articles of Confederation that “no land army shall be kept up by the United States in time of peace, nor any officers or pensioners kept in pay by them who are not in actual service, except such as are or may be rendered unable to support themselves by wounds received in battle in the service of the said States” (Charles J. Hoadly et al., eds., The Public Records of the State of Connecticut [11 vols. to date; Hartford, 1894——], I, 532–33). The Connecticut delegates apparently deemed themselves still bound by this instruction, for the General Assembly had not withdrawn it, even though Congress had rejected the suggested amendment on 23 June 1778 (, XI, 640; , V, 429–30). This legislature at its session of May 1782 ratified the 5 per cent impost amendment with the proviso that none of the proceeds be spent “upon the half-pay-establishment” (ibid., VI, 371–72, 399). As late as 1 November 1783 the same General Assembly characterized the recompense of half pay for life or full pay for five years to officers of the continental line who had served for the duration of the war as “incompatible” with the “principles of Liberty” and “Justice” and as a “stretch of power” unwarranted by the Articles of Confederation (NA: PCC, No. 66, II, 248–55). See also JM Notes, 13 Jan. 1783, and nn. 11, 18.
11. On 21 October 1780, although the half-pay proposal was separately adopted by a vote of seven states to three, only six sanctioned the complete set of resolutions of which that proposal formed a part (, XVIII, 958–62).
12. On 26 August 1777 Congress resolved that questions coming to a vote should “be determined by the majority of states, as the majority of votes in each shall make appear” (, VIII, 676–77). On 1 March 1781 this procedural rule was annulled by the ratification of the Articles of Confederation. Article IX thereof, besides designating important matters which could only be decided by the concurrence of at least nine states, stipulated that all other questions, “except for adjourning from day to day,” could be answered “by the votes of a majority of the united states in congress assembled” (, XIX, 220).
13. See n. 10. JM’s statement reflected the long and acrimonious history of the proposal in Congress of half pay for life. This recommendation, opposed during an extended debate in April and May 1778 by the delegates from New England and New Jersey, was replaced by a compromise resolution, unanimously adopted, which guaranteed after the war one-half pay for seven years, with “certain Provisoes and Limitations,” to most continental officers who would serve for the duration of the conflict (, XI, 502–3; XIV, 946). Although the advocates of half pay for life finally won their way on 21 October 1780, the issue arose again and again, both before and after this victory, with New England and New Jersey standing firmly and vehemently in opposition (, XIV, 638–40, 908–9, 948–49, 974–78; XV, 1335–38; , VI, 405–8, 432; , IV, 450–51; 451, n. 2).
14. See n. 10. In its session of February 1783, the Rhode Island General Assembly highly commended its delegates in Congress for “their strenuous exertions to defeat the operation of measures, which the State considered dangerous to the public liberty” (William R. Staples, Rhode Island in the Continental Congress, p. 427).
15. Samuel Osgood, the chairman of the committee which had rendered the report (n. 7), shared Gilman’s view. In a letter of 4 December 1782 to General Henry Knox, Osgood wrote, “I have endeavored to convince the Members of Congress that it would be best to recommend to the States individually, to Satisfy their Officers on Acct. of half Pay” (, VI, 553). As early as 17 August 1779 Congress temporarily had favored this solution of the issue (, XIV, 974–76).
16. See n. 7. The letter from Adams to Arthur Lee appears with the perhaps erroneous date “Dec. 2d, 1782” in Richard Henry Lee, Life of Arthur Lee, II, 231–32. The memorial of Thomas Wiggans and the letter of Adams were submitted to Congress on 4 February 1783 (, XXIV, 108, n. 2). Prior to 1770, when Wiggans, a fur-trader, “Settled at the Miami’s Town near Detroit,” he had lived at Montreal. Before being incarcerated in 1779 for about three years by the British and having all his property confiscated or destroyed by them, Wiggans claimed that he had supplied Illinois troops in the Northwest Territory with munitions and “Dry Goods” and influenced several Indian tribes there to remain neutral in the war. Escaping from prison on 25 August 1782, he finally reached Boston completely destitute. He offered his services to the United States “on any Expedition, or at any post, on the Frontiers, having the Knowledge of the French, and several Indian Languages.”
In his letter of introduction, Adams mentioned that Wiggans “will inform you of the state and circumstances of British affairs” in Canada, “and will tell you it is an easy thing to unite that province with these states.” On 18 March, Hamilton recommended, on behalf of the committee to which the letter and memorial had been referred, that Wiggans should be directed for employment to the quartermaster general (NA: PCC, No. 41, X, 597–600). A second petition from Wiggans, “praying for relief,” was apparently tabled by Congress on 14 April 1783 (NA: PCC, No. 78, XXIV, 359, 362).
17. JM Notes, 28 Jan., and nn. 4, 42; 29 Jan., and n. 19; 31 Jan., and nn. 11, 17; JM to Randolph, 4 Feb. 1783.
18. JM Notes, 9–10 Jan., and nn. 2, 3; 14 Jan. 1783, and nn. 4–7, 9.
19. See n. 12, above; JM Notes, 9–10 Jan.; 14 Jan., and n. 9; 28 Jan., and nn. 19, 42; 29 Jan.; 31 Jan. 1783, and n. 11.
20. Although the “Rules for conducting business in the United States in Congress assembled,” adopted on 4 May 1781, specified how “a grand committee” and “small committees” should be selected, they neither defined the method of voting within committees nor even mentioned a committee of the whole. The nineteenth of these twenty-eight rules, as drafted by a committee, banned Congress from ever employing the device of a committee of the whole, but the prohibition was deleted before Congress adopted the code. Although a committee of the whole, arranged for by Congress on 18 January 1781, had met occasionally until 9 April 1781, the committee of the whole of 29 January 1783 appears to have been the first such committee to postdate the ratification of the Articles of Confederation on 4 March 1781. Perhaps for this reason there was no convincing precedent to cite in regard to voting therein (, XIX, 71–367 passim). Judging from JM’s notes, the committee of the whole voted for the first time on 4 February—thus precipitating the issue. See JM Notes, 29 Jan.; 5–6 Feb.; 8 Feb. 1783, and n. 4.
21. See n. 7.