Notes on Debates, 5–6 February 1783
Notes on Debates
MS (LC: Madison Papers). For a description of the manuscript of Notes on Debates, see , V, 231–34. For JM’s notes which probably relate to 5 February, as distinct from those summarizing the next day’s proceedings, see n. 10.
No. VIII
In order to decide the rule of voting in a Come. of the whole,1 before Congss. should go into the said Come. Mr. Bland moved that the rule sd. be to vote by States. & the majority of States in Come. to decide.2 Mr. Wilson moved to postpone Mr. B’s motion in order to resolve that the rule be, to vote by States and according to the same rules which govern Congress; as this genl question was connected in the minds of members with the particular question to which it was to be immediately applied,3 the motion for postponing was negatived, Chiefly by the Eastern States. A division of the question on Mr. Bland’s motion was then called for & the first part was agreed to as on the Journal. The latter clause, to wit, a majority to decide, was negatived; so nothing as to the main point was determined.4 In this uncertainty Mr. Osgood proposed that Congs. sd. resolve itself into a Come. of the whole. Mr. Carrol as chairman5 observed that as the same difficulty would occur, he wished Congs. would previously direct him how to proceed. Mr. Hamilton proposed that the latter clause of Mr. Bland’s motion shd. be reconsidered and agreed to wrong as it was, rather than have no rule at all. In opposition to which it was sd. that there was no more reason why one & that not the minor side sd. wholly yield to the inflexility of the other thn. vice, versa, and that if they sd. be willing to yield on the present occasion, it wd. be better to do it tacitly, than to saddle themselves with an express & perpetual rule which they judged improper. This expedient was assented to, and Congress accordingly went into
A Committee of the whole
The points arising on the several amendts. proposed were 1st. the period beyond wch. the rule of the first valuation sd. not be in force.6 on this point Mr. Collins proposed 5 years, Mr. Bland 10 years, Mr. Boudinot 7 years N. Jersey havg instructed her Delegates thereon,7 The Cont. delegates proposed 3 years,—on the question for 3 years, N. H. no, Mas: no. R. I. ay Cont. ay. all the other States no.—on the question for 5 years, all the States ay except Cont.8
The 2d. point was whether & how far the rule sd. be retrospective. on this point the same views operated as on the preceeding. Some were agst. any retrospection, others, for extending it to the whole debt, and others, for extendg it so far as was necessary for liquidating and closing the accounts between the United States and each individual State.9 The several motions expressive of these different ideas were at length withdrawn, with a view that the point might be better digested, & more accurately brought before Congress. So the rept. was agreed to in the Come. & made to Congress.10 When the question was about to be put Mr Madison observed that the report lay in a great degree of confusion, that several points had been decided in a way too vague & indirect to ascertain the real sense of Congs. that other points involved in the subject had not recd. any decision; and proposed the sense of Congs. shd. be distinctly & successively taken on all of them & the result referred to a special Come. to be digested &c.11 The question was however put & negatived, the votes being as they appear on the Journal.12 The reasons on which Mr. Hamiltons motion was grounded appear from its preamble13
1. JM Notes, 4 Feb. 1783, and n. 20. For a probable explanation of the Roman numeral above the date, see , V, 231.
2. The italicized words were underlined by JM. Three sentences later in his notes, he probably revealed why he underlined the passage.
3. That is, with the rule of apportionment to be grounded on the proposed valuation” of land as a basis for requisitioning money from the states by Congress. See JM Notes, 4 Feb. 1783.
4. Neither Wilson’s motion nor the three tallies of votes are shown in the official journal (, XXIV, 109). See n. 2.
5. Daniel Carroll was still chairman of the committee of the whole, which had convened on 29, 31 January, and 4 February 1783. See JM Notes for those days; also for 8 Feb., n. 4; 10 Feb. 1783, n. 15.
6. See the motion by John Rutledge as recorded in JM Notes, 4 Feb. 1783.
7. Boudinot erred but was probably corrected by a fellow delegate from New Jersey. On 25 June 1778 there had been read in Congress a “representation” of the New Jersey General Assembly declaring that land valuations, as stipulated in the proposed Articles of Confederation, should be “struck once at least every five years,” because the “quantity or value of real property in some states may encrease much more rapidly than in others, and therefore the quota, which is at one time just, will at another be disproportionate” (, XI, 649). These implicit instructions to the delegates from New Jersey remained unchanged (Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of New Jersey, 1776–1786, microfilm in Princeton University Library). For this reason they voted “ay” on “the question for 5 years.”
8. No delegates from Delaware and Georgia were present in Congress. Rhode Island and Maryland were each represented by only one delegate, but JM apparently counted their votes as effective, even though they would not have been so counted in polls taken during a formal session.
9. , IV, 56, n. 6; 67–68; 69, n. 7; 71; 72, nn. 1, 2; V, 58, n. 4; 293 and n. 2; 322; 323, n. 5; 357. Immediately following this sentence, JM wrote and canceled: “This was generally satisfactory except to Mr. Dyer & Mr. Mercer who supposed that if as in that case the requisitions of Congs. would be the sum apportioned it would operate too much in favr of the States which wd be underrated in the first valuation.” JM’s mention of John Francis Mercer, who presented his credentials as a delegate from Virginia on 6 February, almost conclusively demonstrates that the debate on the “2d. point” occurred in the committee of the whole on that day rather than 5 February (, IV, 154, n. 14; , XXIV, 110–11). Therefore, JM’s last preceding paragraph summarizes a discussion and vote in the committee on 5 February. See also JM Notes, 7 Feb., and n. 14; 17 Feb. 1783, and n. 1.
The report of the committee of the whole was drafted by Rutledge, with the exception of a small portion in the hand of Boudinot. The five-year time limit of “the rule of the first valuation,” agreed upon by the committee of the whole, was not included in the report, but was “filed with” it on a separate sheet of paper.
Although the “2d. point,” concerning “how far the rule sd. be retrospective,” was not settled by the committee, its report recommended that “the rule of the first valuation” apply “for defraying all the charges of war and other expences which have or shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by Congress,” thus leaving the issue to be determined in formal session. The committee’s report embodied that of the Rutledge committee debated on 14 January by a grand committee and debated and amended by the committee of the whole on 31 January, and 4 to 6 February 1783 (JM Notes, 13 Jan.; 14 Jan., and n. 7; 28 Jan., and n. 19; 31 Jan.; 4 Feb. 1783; , XXIV, 112–13, 113, n. 1).
10. On 5 February, upon receiving the “resolutions” comprising the report, Congress decided to take them “into consideration to-morrow” (, XXIV, 109). The remainder of JM’s notes refer to proceedings on 6 February.
11. Many years after writing his notes, JM inserted his surname. His proposal may not have been in the form of a motion, for it is unmentioned in the official journal. For a partial satisfaction of his desire for clarification, see JM Notes, 7 Feb. 1783.
12. Only five states voted to adopt the resolution recommended by the committee of the whole. JM voted in the negative (, XXIV, 116). See also JM Notes, 7 Feb. 1783.
13. Prior to the rejection of the committee’s recommendation, a motion by Hamilton, seconded by FitzSimons, to postpone a vote on that recommendation until an equitable method had been devised to evaluate land and apportion tax quotas, state by state, “with such accuracy as the importance of the subject demands,” was supported by only four states. Of the five Virginia delegates, Lee did not vote, Bland opposed the motion, and the rest favored it (, XXIV, 114–16). See also John C. Hamilton, History of the Republic, II, 399; JM Notes, 17 Feb. 1783, and n. 4.