Notes on Debates, 21 November 1782
Notes on Debates
MS (LC: Madison Papers). See Notes on Debates, 4 November 1782, ed. n.
A report was made by a Committee to whom had been referred several previous reports & propositions, relative to the salaries of foreign Ministers,1 delivering it as the2 opinion of the Committee that the Salaries allowed to Ministers Plenipoy: to wit £2500 Sterlg. would not admit of reduction; but that the Saly. allowed to Secretaries to legations, to wit £1000 Sterlg. ought to be reduced to £500. This Committee consisted of Mr. Duane, Mr. Izard & Mr. Madison the last of whom disagreed to the opinion of his colleagues as to the reduction of the £25.00 allowed to Mrs. Plenipoy3
Agst. a reduction it was argued that not only justice, but the dignity of the U. S. required a liberal allowance to foreign Servants; that gentlemen who had experienced the expence of living in Europe4 did not think that a less sum would be sufficient for a decent style; and that in the instance of Mr. A. Lee the expences claimed by him & allowed by Congress exceeded the fixed salary in question.5
In favor of a reduction were urged the poverty of the U. S. the simplicity of Republican Governments, the inconsistency of splendid allowances to Ministers whose cheif duty lay in displaying the wants of their constituents and soliciting a supply of them: and above all, the policy of reconciling the army to the oeconomical arrangements imposed on them,6 by extending the reforms to every other Department:
The result of this discussion was a referance of the Report to another Committee consisting of Mr. Williamson, Mr. Osgood & Mr. Carroll7
A motion was made by Mr. Howel 2ded. by Mr. Arnold, recommending to the several States, to settle with & satisfy at the charge of the U. S. all such temporary corps as had been raised by them respectively with the approbation of Congress. The repugnance which appeared in Congress to go into so extensive & important a measure at this time, led the mover to withdraw it.8
A motion was made by Mr. Madison seconded by Mr. Jones, “That the Secy of F. Affairs be authorised to communicate to Forn: Ministers who may reside near Congress, all such articles of Intelligence recd. by Congress as he shall judge fit, & that he have like authority with respect to acts & Resolutions passed by Congress; reporting nevertheless the communications which in all such cases he shall have made.[”]9
It was objected by some that such a Resolution was unnecessary, the Secy. being already possessed of the authority:10 it was contended by others that he ought previously to such communication to report his intention to do so; others again were of opinion that it was unnecessary to report at all.
The motion was suggested by casual information from the Secretary that he had not communicated to the French Minister the reappointment of Mr. Jefferson,11 no act of Congress having empowered or instructed him to do so.
The Motion was committed to Mr. Williamson Mr. Madison & Mr. Peters12
1. This report of the Duane-Izard-JM committee has not been found. The “several previous reports & propositions” probably included (1) JM’s report of 28 May 1782, recommending what the salaries of American ministers, ministers-designate, secretaries of embassy, and private secretaries of ministers should be (, IV, 278–79; 280, nn. 2, 3; 281, n. 6); (2) the report of 11 June of the Lowell-Wharton-Clark committee, to which JM’s recommendations had been referred six days before (NA: PCC, No. 25, II, 106–7; No. 186, fol. 33; , XXII, 332–33); (3) the motion of Duane on 16 September to pay Dumas a salary (NA: PCC, No. 25, II, 203; Report on Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 18 September 1782, n. 16). The Duane motion was referred to the Madison-Lee-Duane committee, which Congress had appointed on 23 August to consider the reports numbered 1 and 2, above (NA: PCC, No. 186, fol. 50; , XXIII, 583 and n. 3).
Lee’s departure from Philadelphia on 6 October to return to Virginia left a vacancy on the committee, which Congress filled by appointing Izard. Although the date of his appointment is unknown, he was a member by 12 November, when the committee submitted its report to Congress (JM to Randolph, 8 October 1782, n. 21; NA: PCC, No. 186, fol. 66).
2. With this word JM completed his writing on a page in his copybook. He headed the next page, “No. II.” For a probable explanation, see Notes on Debates, 4 November 1782, ed. n.
3. Instead of £25.00, JM obviously intended to write £2500. JM’s salary recommendations of 28 May 1782 are expressed in “Dollars” rather than in pounds sterling. See n. 1, above. JM appears to mean that he, unlike his two colleagues on the committee, favored reducing below £2,500 the salary of a minister plenipotentiary. As members of a committee appointed to report “the most just and practicable means of reducing the expenditures of the United States,” Izard and Duane had recently recommended to Congress definite ways by which the cost of the army could be lessened (, XXIII, 682–86, 693).
4. For example, Arthur Lee and Ralph Izard (, II, 167, n. 4; 218, n. 2; IV, 250, n. 17; , XXII, 255–60).
5. After “Congress” JM wrote and deleted “it appeared Had.” On 6 August 1781 Congress accepted Arthur Lee’s statement of accounts, showing that while he had been a commissioner in Europe from 15 December 1776 to 25 March 1780, his “extraordinary expenses” had been approximately 19,836 livres tournois, or £2,239 sterling (, XVIII, 1154; XXI, 832–34). In settlement of this debt, Congress on 18 November 1782 voted to issue him a bill of exchange in livres, equating the livre as 10½ pence, sterling (, XXIII, 727–28).
6. See n. 3, above.
7. This committee submitted its report on 28 April 1783 (NA: PCC, No. 186, fol. 69; , XXIV, 312, and n. 2).
8. See , XXIII, 748, and n. 2.
9. See Motion To Inform Foreign Ministers, 21 November 1782, and ed. n.
10. The directive of Congress on 22 February 1782 to the secretary for foreign affairs could be interpreted to leave to his discretion what he communicated to ministers of foreign governments resident in the United States, except that his letters referring directly “to treaties or conventions proposed to be entered into, or instructions relative thereto, or other great national subjects, shall be submitted to the inspection and receive the approbation of Congress before they shall be transmitted” (, XXII, 88–89). By letter, and also probably by word of mouth, Livingston had informed La Luzerne about matters of mutual interest without prior clearance by Congress to do so. See, for example, , V, 126–27, 190–91, 399, 481–82, 591.