Notes on Debates, [9–10 January] 1783
Notes on Debates
MS (LC: Madison Papers). For a description of the manuscript of Notes on Debates, see , V, 231–34.
[9–10 January 1783]
Wednesday Jany. 8–Thursday Jany 9th & Friday Jany 10.1
On the report*2 for valuing the land conformably to the rule laid down in the fœderal articles,3 the delegates from Connecticut contended for postponing the subject during the war, alledging the impediments arising from the possession of N.Y. &c. by the enemy;4 but apprehending (as was supposed) that the flourishing state of Connecticut compared with the Southern States, would render a valuation at this crisis unfavorable to the former. Others particularly Mr. Hamilton & Mr. Madison were of opinion that the rule of the confederation was a chimerical one,5 since if the intervention of the individual states were employed their interests would give a biass to their judgments or that at least suspicions of such biass wd prevail;6 and without their intervention, it could not be executed but at an expence, delay & uncertainty which were inadmissable; that it would perhaps be therefore preferable to represent these difficulties to the States & recommend an exchange of this rule of dividing the public burdens for one more simple easy & equal.7 The Delegates from S. Carolina generally & particularly Mr. Rutlidge advocated the propriety of the constitutional rule & of an adherence to it, and of the safety of the mode in question arising from the honor of the State.8 The debates on the subject were interrupted by a letter from the Superintendant of Finance: informing Congress that the situation of his department required that a committee sd. be appointed with power to advise him on the steps proper to be taken; and suggesting an appointmt. of one consisting of a member from each State, with authority to give their advice on the subject. This expedient was objected to as improper, since Congress wd. thereby delegate an incommunicable power, perhaps, and would at any rate lend a sanction to a measure without even knowing what it was; not to mention the distrust which it manifested of their own prudence & fidelity.9 It was at length proposed & agreed to, that a special committee consisting of Mr. Rutlidge Mr. Osgood10 & Madison should confer with the Superintendt of Finance on the subject of his letter and make report to Congress. After the adjournment of Congress this Committee conferred with the Superintendt11 who after being apprized of the difficulties which had arisen in Congress, stated to them that the last acct. of our money affairs in Europe shewed that contrary to his expectation and estimates there was 3½ Million of livres short of the bills actually drawn, that further draughts were indispensable to prevent a stop to the public service; that to make good this deficiency there was only the further success of Mr. Adams’ loan, and the friendship of France to depend on, that it was necessary for him to decide on the expediency of his staking the public credit on these contingent funds by further draughts,12 and that in making this decision he wished for the sanction of a Committee of Congress; that this sanction was preferable to that of Congress itself only as it wd. confide the risk attending bills drawn on such funds to a smaller number, and as secrecy was essential in the operation as well to guard our affairs in general from injury, as the credit of the bills in question from debasement.13 It was supposed both by the Superntendt & the Committee that there was in fact little danger of bills drawn on France on the credit of the loan of 4 Million of dollars, applied for,14 being dishonored; since if the negociations on foot were to terminate in peace, France would prefer an advance in our favor to exposing us to the necessity of resorting to G. B. for it; and that if the war sd. continue the necessity of such an aid to its prosecution would prevail. The result was that the Committee should make such report as would bring the matter before Congress under an injunction of secrecy, and produce a resolution authorising the Superintdt. to draw bills as the public service might require on the credit of applications for loans in Europe. The report of the Committee to this effect was the next day accordingly made & adopted unanimously.15 Mr. Dyer16 alone at first opposed it, as an unwarrantable & dishonorable presumption on the ability & disposition of France; Being answered however that without such a step, or some other expedt. which neither he nor any other had suggested, our credit would be stabbed abroad and the public service wrecked at home; and that however mortifying it might be to commit our credit, our faith & our honor to the mercy of a foreign nation, it was a mortification wch. cd. not be avoided without endangering our very existence; he acquiesed and the resol: was entered unanimously.17 The circumstance of unanimity was thought of consequence, as it wd. evince the more the necessity of the succor and induce France the more readily to yield it. on this occasion several members were struck with the impropriety of the late attempt to withdraw from France the trust confided to her over the terms of peace when we were under the necessity of giving so decisive a proof of our dependance upon her.18 It was also adverted to in private conversation as a great unhappiness that during negociations for peace, when an appearance of vigor & resource were so desirable, such a proof of our poverty & imbecility19 could not be avoided.*20
The conduct of Mr. Howel &c. had led several & particularly Mr. Peters into an opinion that some further rule & security ought to be provided for concealing matters of a secret nature. On the motion of Mr. Peters a committee composed of himself Mr. Williamson &c. was appointed to make report on the subject.21 On this day the report was made. It proposed that members of Congress should each subscribe an instrument pledging their faith & honor not to disclose certain enumerated matters.
The enumeration being very indistinct and objectionable, and a written engagement being held insufficient with those who without it wd. violate prudence or honor, as well as marking a general distrust of the prudence & honor of Congress, the report was generally disrelished; and after some debate in which it was faintly supported by Mr. Williamson, the committee asked & obtained leave to withdraw it.22
A discussion of the report on the mode of valuing the lands was revived. It consisted chiefly of a repetition of the former debates.23
In the evening according to appt. on teusday last, the grand Committee met, as did the Superintendt. of Finance. The chairman Mr. Wolcot informed the committee that Cols. Ogden & Brooks two of the deputies from the army had given him notice that Genl. McDougal the first of the deputation was so indisposed with a rheumatism24 as to be unable to attend, and expressed a desire that the Committee would adjourn to his lodging at the Indian queen tavern25 the deputies being very anxious to finish their business, among other reasons, on acct. of the scarcity of money with them. At first the Committee seemed disposed to comply; but it being suggested that such an adjournmt. by a Committee of a member from each State, would be derogatory from the respect due to themselves, especially as the Mission from the army was not within the ordinary course of duty,26 the idea was dropped. In lieu of it they adjourned to monday evening next, on the ostensible reasons of the extreme badness of the weather which had prevented the attendance of several members.27
1. For evidence that nothing which JM recorded under this caption occurred on “Wednesday Jany. 8,” see n. 2.
2. JM wrote the first sentence of his note in the left margin of the page and the second sentence at the bottom of that page. Judging from the handwriting, both sentences postdate his record for 9–10 January, and the second sentence was added in his old age as a direction to the editor of the first edition of his papers. See , I, 249, and n.
On 20 November 1782 Congress appointed a committee of five, with John Rutledge as chairman and JM as one of the members, “to report the best scheme for a valuation” (, V, 294; 295, n. 12). On 6 January 1783, although unnoted in the printed journal or in JM’s Notes on Debates for that day, the committee’s report, drafted by Rutledge, was submitted to Congress and docketed, “Assigned for Consideration” on “Thursday Jany 9th 1782,” a misdating of one year (NA: PCC, No. 24, fols. 79–84). This docket, the silence of the printed journal of 8 January about the report (, XXIV, 43), the lack of positive evidence in JM’s own record that the report was considered on that day, and the certainty that all else which he mentions occurred on 9 or 10 January, warrant little doubt that his caption “Wednesday Jany. 8” should have been omitted or qualified by an expression such as, “Nothing requiring notice.” See also n. 9.
3. Article VIII of the Articles of Confederation stipulated that the expenses incurred by Congress for prosecuting the war and maintaining “the common defence or general welfare” should be defrayed “by the several states in proportion to the value of all land within each state, granted to or surveyed for any Person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the united states in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint” (, XIX, 217). For comment on this provision and a summary of the Rutledge committee’s recommendations, see JM Notes, 14 Jan. 1783, nn. 6, 7.
4. The delegates from Connecticut were Eliphalet Dyer, Oliver Ellsworth, and Oliver Wolcott (, VII, lxiii, lxiv). New York City and environs and part of the coastal area of the Maine district of Massachusetts were still occupied by the enemy. The Pennsylvania Gazette of 8 January reported that on 4 January Rivington’s Royal Gazette of New York City had announced the evacuation of Charleston, S.C., by the British. Congress was not officially informed of this event until the arrival on 15 January 1783 of General Nathanael Greene’s dispatch of 19 December 1782 (JM Notes, 15 Jan. 1783).
5. JM Notes, 14 Jan. 1783, and n. 4.
8. The delegates from South Carolina were John Lewis Gervais, Ralph Izard, David Ramsay, and John Rutledge (, VII, lxxv–lxxvi). “The constitutional rule,” partially quoted in n. 3, further required that the financial quotas, determined by Congress and requisitioned from the states, should be met by taxes, “laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several states within the time agreed upon by the united states in congress assembled” (, XIX, 217). For a repetition by Rutledge of his opinion, see JM Notes, 14 Jan. 1783.
9. Robert Morris’ letter is dated 9 January 1783 and was laid before Congress on that day (, XXIV, 43). To assure secrecy and dispatch, Morris wanted Congress to vest its authority of ultimate decision in a grand committee, which thereby could empower him to proceed with a course of action for meeting the financial emergency.
10. Samuel Osgood of Massachusetts.
11. This conference was held either in the afternoon or evening of 9 January.
12. In a dispatch of 11 January 1783 to Benjamin Franklin, Morris revealed that he had arrived at the amount of the overdraft by examining the statement of account, “lately received,” from Ferdinand Grand, banker for the United States in Paris, and by assuming that the loan of six millions of livres, negotiated by John Adams with Dutch bankers, had not produced “above three millions” (., VI, 202–4; , XXIII, 741; , V, 128, n. 6; 129, n. 8; 362). Morris was overly sanguine about the outcome of the Dutch loan, for in a letter of 6 November 1782, which Morris had not received by early in January, Adams expressed “fear” that no more than 1,500,000 guilders had actually been made available (Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr., V, 858–59; VI, 220). By “contingent funds” Morris meant those which could be drawn upon if the Dutch bankers fulfilled their contract and if Louis XVI of France consented to make a further advance of money from the royal treasury.
13. That is, if it became generally known that Morris was attempting to pay bills with drafts made upon a non-existent fund, they would have little, if any, exchange value.
14. On 14 September 1782 Congress had resolved to seek an additional loan of this amount from France (, V, 129, n. 9). As late as 1 November 1783 Franklin’s effort to have King Louis XVI grant this favor had been unsuccessful—not “by want of good will to assist us, as some have unjustly supposed, but by a real want of the means” (., VI, 721).
15. The “next day” was 10 January. See Conference with Morris, 10 Jan. 1783, and n. 5.
16. For the “long-winded” Eliphalet Dyer, “whose harangues,” according to La Luzerne, “introduced the custom of reading newspapers in Congress” (Brant, James Madison, II, 223), see , V, 292, n. 16; 384, n. 6.
17. , XXIV, 43–44.
18. JM Notes, 1 Jan., and n. 2; 3 Jan. 1783, and n. 4.
19. JM used this word in the sense of “weakness” or “incapacity.”
20. In his note, which immediately follows “avoided” in the manuscript, JM referred to his two paragraphs prefaced by “*see Friday Jany. 10th” at the close of his notes on debates for 13 January. The editors have followed his instructions. These two paragraphs were either an afterthought of JM, or he had included them in a rough draft of the proceedings of 9–10 January but inadvertently overlooked them when making a fair copy of that draft.
21. To this point in the paragraph, JM refers to the motion of Richard Peters of Pennsylvania on 23 December 1782, resulting in his appointment as chairman of a committee, comprising also Hugh Williamson of North Carolina and John Taylor Gilman of New Hampshire, to report the rules of secrecy theretofore adopted by Congress and to recommend “any further regulations which may be necessary to adopt on that subject” (NA: PCC, 186, fol. 76). For the conduct of the Rhode Island delegates, David Howell and Jonathan Arnold, see JM Notes, 3 Jan. 1783, and n. 3.
22. For the committee’s report, drafted by Peters, see , XXIII, 828–29, n. 1; , V, 421, n. 10. The report is not mentioned in the printed journal of Congress for 10 January 1783 (, XXIV, 43–44). The Peters committee apparently never submitted an amended version of the report.
23. See the first paragraph of the present Notes on Debates and nn. 2, 3; also JM Notes, 13 Jan. 1783.
24. JM Notes, 6 Jan., and n. 2; 7 Jan. 1783, and n. 6. For General McDougall’s illness, see , XXV, 323.
25. The tavern was situated on Fourth Street between Market and Chestnut streets, about two blocks from the State House, where Congress met, and hardly more than a block from the boarding house at Fifth and Market streets where JM lived (Pa. Mag. Hist. and Biog., XII [1888], 103, 503; , IV, opp. 323).