Notes on Debates, 11 February 1783
Notes on Debates
MS (LC: Madison Papers). For a description of the manuscript of Notes on Debates, see , V, 231–34.
The Rept. made by the Come. of the whole1 havg. decided that the mode to be grounded on the return of facts called for from the States, ought now to be ascertained.2
Mr. Rutlidge proposed 2d by Mr. Gilman, that the States sd. be required to name Comrs. each of them one, who or any nine of them sd. be appd. & empowerd. by Congs. to settle the valuation.3 Mr. Ghorum was agst. it as parting with a power which might be turned by the States agst. Congs. Mr. Wolcot agst. it; declares his opinion that the confederation ought to be amended by substituting numbers of inhabitants as the rule; admits the difference between freemen & blacks; and suggests a compromise by including in the numeration such blacks only as were within 16 & 60. years of age.4 Mr. Wilson was agst. relinquishing such a power to the States; proposes that the commissioners be appd. by Congs. and their proceedings subject to the ratification of Congs. Mr. Mercer was for submitting them to the revision of Congs. & this amendment was recd.5 Mr. Peters agst. the whole scheme of valuation, as holding out false lights & hopes to the public.6 Mr. Rutlidge thinks Comrs. appd. by the States may be trusted as well as Comrs. appd. by Congs. or as Congs themselves.7 Mr Wilson observes that if appd. by the States they will bring with them the spirit of agents for their respective States, if appd. by Congs. will consider themselves as servants of U. S. at large & be more impartial.8
Mr. Ghorum 2ded. by Mr. Wilson, proposes to postpone in order to require the States to appt. Comrs. to give Congs. information for a basis for a valuation. on the question N.H. no, Mas: ay. R.I. ay. Cont. ay. N.Y. ay[.] N.J. ay. Pa. ay. Va. no, N.C. no, S.C. no. So it was decided in the negative9
To make the resolution more clear, “after the words “or any nine of them.” the words “concurring therein” were added. Mr. Rutledge says that subjecting the acts of the Comrs. to the revision of Congs. had so varied his plan that he sd. be agst it10—on the main question N.H. ay. Mas: ay[.] R.I. ay. Cont. ay. N.Y. no, N.J. no. Pa. ay. Va. ay. [Mr. Madison no], N.C. ay. S.C. ay. So it was agreed to & the resolution declaring that a mode sd. now be fixed struck out as executed.11 The whole report was then committed to a special Come. consisting of Mr. Rutlidge Mr. Gorham & Mr. Gilman to be formed into a proper act.12
1. The report was that made to Congress on the preceding day (JM Notes, 10 Feb. 1783, and n. 17).
2. The committee of the whole summarized in four numbered paragraphs what its members had been able to agree upon during their frequent meetings beginning on 29 January, viz., (1) that the valuation of lands, buildings, and improvements within the United States should “be immediately attempted” as directed by the Articles of Confederation; (2) that on or before 1 January 1784 each state should inform Congress of the total acreage privately owned in that state, also the number of dwelling houses, other buildings, whites, and Negroes; (3) that Congress, before calling upon the states for the data mentioned in No. 2, should “now” decide upon the “mode” whereby “the quotas of the several States” would be determined after the data were received; (4) that this “mode” should be “in force” for no more than five years, and during that “term” should be applied only for allocating among the states the sums required for “supporting the public credit and other contingent expences, and for adjusting all accounts between the United States and each particular State for monies paid or articles furnished by the several States” (, XXIV, 124). If these proposals were agreed to, their enforcement obviously would not allay the immediate financial crisis, characterized by an empty Confederation treasury and importunate military and civilian creditors of the United States. See JM Notes, 7 Jan.; 13 Jan.; 24 Jan. 1783, and n. 17.
3. The Rutledge-Gilman motion, as amended during the debate on this day, stipulated that after 2 January 1784 Congress would name an evaluation commissioner for every state which by then had not nominated a commissioner. The thirteen commissioners, having been appointed by Congress, would make the evaluation on the basis of the data submitted in accord with No. 2 of the report of the committee of the whole (n. 2, above). Before becoming effective, this evaluation must be concurred in by at least nine of the commissioners and thereafter subjected to the revision and approval of Congress (, XXIV, 125, and n. 1).
4. Oliver Wolcott’s suggested amendment to the Articles of Confederation was plainly intended to be a sectional compromise.
5. The Wilson-Mercer view that the proceedings of the commissioners should be submitted to the review of Congress was adopted by Congress and added in President Elias Boudinot’s handwriting to the close of the manuscript text of the Rutledge-Gilman motion. See n. 3; and , XXIV, 125, n. 1.
6. JM and Alexander Hamilton, among other members of Congress, probably concurred with Richard Peters’ opinion. See JM Notes, 9–10 Jan.; 14 Jan.; 27 Jan.; 28 Jan.; 31 Jan. 1783, and n. 17.
7. See JM Notes, 14 Jan. 1783, for a comment of similar tenor by John Rutledge. See also JM Notes, 31 Jan. 1783, and n. 10.
8. James Wilson apparently made this observation, which resembled Hamilton’s supposedly “imprudent & injurious” remark of 28 January, in support of his motion to have a grand committee of Congress, rather than special commissioners, “settle the relative value and adjust the quotas of each State,” by using the returns from the states as provided for by the second recommendation in the report of the committee of the whole (JM Notes, 28 Jan. 1783, and n. 12). The allocations agreed upon by the grand committee, comprising a member from each state, were not to become effective until Congress had accepted them. Needing the affirmative votes of at least seven states, Wilson’s motion drew the support of only six, including Virginia, and hence failed of adoption. See n. 2; and , XXIV, 125.
9. See n. 4. The Gorham-Wilson proposal, by having a commissioner from each state come to Philadelphia solely for the purpose of supplying “information” about “the value of lands and buildings” in his state, would have left Congress with the entire authority “to adjust the proportion of the several States upon the principles of Justice and equity.” Varying from JM’s list of the vote, Gorham’s record on the manuscript of his motion shows Rhode Island as being “div,” and South Carolina as being “ay” (NA: PCC, No. 36, III, 459; , XXIV, 125–26, 126, n. 1).
10. As written by Rutledge, the amendment was to add “concurring,” not “concurring therein,” after “or any nine of them” (NA: PCC, No. 36, III, 457; , XXIV, 125, n. 1). JM should have omitted his first quotation mark. The adoption of the amendment mentioned in n. 5, above, “varied” the “plan” of Rutledge fundamentally by transferring control of the evaluation from the state commissioners to Congress. On this issue he consistently had taken a states’-rights position. See JM Notes, 9–10 Jan., and n. 8; 14 Jan., and n. 7; 29 Jan. 1783 and n. 25.
11. Thus, by a vote of 8 ayes and 2 noes, recorded neither in the journal nor on the manuscript of Rutledge’s motion, the amended motion was adopted and thereafter inserted in the stead of the third recommendation of the committee of the whole. See n. 2; and , XXIV, 124. Reaching a decision about where the determination of the “mode” should be lodged was far from having Congress agree upon what the “mode” should be. See JM to Jefferson, 11 Feb. 1783, and to Randolph on the same day.
12. , XXIV, 124. See also JM Notes, 14 Feb. 1783, and n. 7.