Chapter XVIII: Front Matter (18)

The only objection would be, any inconvenience which might take place to counterbalance the benefit to be derived from the tax. It had been supposed that a depreciation would take place in the value of the notes in consequence of this tax. In order to show that this was not probable, he supposed the tax would be laid.

Bank notes were issued and re-issued; but when an individual gave a note, after it was paid, there was an end of it. Bank notes might be issued twenty-times, or oftener; it was necessary, therefore, to tax them in a different way from other notes. He supposed the same provision might be adopted here as was adopted in England. They might be allowed to be issued for a certain number of years--say three. This would remedy every kind of inconvenience arising from reissuing. As to notes now in circulation, the way to prevent inconvenience would be to fix the time after which all notes should be renewed by stamped notes. The consequence would be, that all notes would, by degrees, be returned to the bank, and no difficulty would arise from doing so. Six or nine months might be allowed for this purpose. This was the way in which all the banks in England, except the Bank of England, were subject to the stamp duty; that bank, he believed, had paid a certain sum to be excused from the tax. Perhaps the same privilege might be allowed here.

Mr. NICHOLAS noticed what had fallen from the gentleman from Pennsylvania on the subject of depreciation, and showed by the regulations under which the tax would be paid, that it could not take place.

Mr. RUTLEDGE thought bank notes a proper object of taxation, and had not heard one good reason why they should be exempted from the proposed duty. The arguments of his colleague (Mr. SMITH,) that bank notes now in circulation would be affected, and their currency checked, he would answer, by observing that the duty could not operate upon notes now in circulation; it was not proposed to have them called in, but to have those stamped which shall be issued after a certain day. He did not think the weight and importance which generally attach to the observations of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SITGREAVES) attach to those now offered by him. With respect to the circulation of bank notes being embarrassed by the necessity there would be for the people at large being acquainted with the date of the law, the objection would apply to private as well as bank notes. The people throughout the country must inform themselves, and the most ignorant will inform themselves of the date of the act; and whenever a bank note or a private note shall be offered to them, they will always inquire if it was issued subsequent or previous to a certain day. The gentleman from New York (Mr. BROOKS) was certainly incorrect in saying that "bank paper was not stamped in any country whatever." In Great Britain, Mr. R. said, the paper of all private banks is stamped; that of the Bank of England has been exempted from the stamp duty, by the bank having paid the Government a sum, in gross, by way of commutation. Although the moneyed interest has always been well and largely represented in England, yet bank notes are taxed there, and the circulation of them has not been embarrassed by this duty; on the contrary, the system of banking has been wonderfully extended throughout that kingdom. In every part of it bank notes are current; every town and village has its banks; they are as universal as their churches. Mr. R. asked, where would be the propriety of taxing notes issued by fifty individuals in their individual capacity, and exempting those issued by them when they associated, called themselves a Banking Company, and issued notes to three times the amount of their capital? The measure seemed to him unwise, and he was sure it would be unpopular. He could not conceive why people who had no other property than stock, which, in many instances, yielded an interest of fifteen per cent., should not contribute to the support of Government.

Mr. SWANWICK.--The greatest objection which the banks in England seemed to have to the tax, was, that it might ascertain the quantity of notes they had in circulation. In order to prevent this, the Bank of England commuted with Government for a certain sum; but the notes of all the private banks were stamped. He thought it reasonable that this kind of notes should be stamped as well as others, though he would have the tax low; for he saw no reason why merchants should pay, and bankers be excused from the duty, since great emolument was derived from these notes, by the consent of the community, and the community, in return, had a right to expect assistance from the banks.

Mr. W. SMITH believed, if an original proposition had been brought forward to tax bank notes, it would have been thought a very serious thing, and they should have paused before they consented to the proposition. Gentlemen who advocated this proposition, allowed it would require many provisions to carry it into effect. What those provisions were he could not pretend to say. He thought bank notes had been too much confounded with notes of individuals, and they were quite different things. Those of individuals were mostly larger, the greatest part of bank notes were for five dollars. Notes of individuals, if not stamped, could not be received in evidence; but he did not know what must be the penalty on bank notes being issued without stamp. Besides, he said, to lay a duty upon the notes issued by the Bank of the United States would be a violation of its charter, for, by that charter, it was said, the notes of that bank should be received at the custom-house in payment of duties. It had been said a commutation might be allowed, but that would be equally contrary to the charter; besides, if such a thing were to be done, he did not know who could do it; it would not be the proper business of the PRESIDENT, and that House would have difficulty in saying what would be a proper sum to be paid for the purpose. He again feared the introduction of this principle would destroy the bill.

Mr. COIT did not think it was quite so clear a thing as some gentlemen seemed to think it, that bank notes ought to be stamped. He did not believe the analogy between the bank and private notes was so strong as had been represented. If the facts were as represented, that every bank note was to be considered as producing a profit to the banker, there would be good ground for the tax; but he was of opinion this was not the case. For instance, if the bank gave their note for one hundred dollars, it was equal evidence with the note of an individual, that they had received the value of one hundred dollars. But if they went further, it would be found the analogy did not hold. The note of the individual was at a certain date, but that of the banker was on demand; and they were every day liable to be called upon for the money of which the note was the representative; so that they were obliged to keep the money, or money at least to a great amount, ready to take up their notes whenever presented. Banks could not, therefore, be considered as receiving a profit on all the notes they issued; but only upon the difference between the amount of notes issued, and the cash they are obliged to keep by them to answer their demands. The analogy, therefore, did not hold; and, if bank notes were taxed, it must be upon a different principle from that on which the notes of individuals are taxed.

Mr. POTTER was in favor of the amendment, and he trusted that gentlemen who were always ready to go into every species of expense, would not flinch when the object was to raise money. He had this morning voted for a bill laying additional tax on licenses, which he believed would be found in some degree oppressive, but he did it because he knew revenue was wanted. He hoped the gentleman from South Carolina would, on this occasion, concur in the proposed tax. He doubted not unexceptionable means might be devised for collecting it; if not, it might be given up.

Mr. HARPER was against the amendment, not because he was satisfied bank notes were not a proper object of taxation, but because he did not wish to embarrass the bill with a subject which they had not time to consider.

Mr. SWANWICK again spoke in favor of the tax.

Mr. OTIS was against the amendment; not because he thought such a tax would be improper, but from the difficulties which would attend the carrying it into effect. Besides, he said, if the notes were to revert to the bank every two or three years, it would cause a run upon them for cash, instead of renewed notes, which might be very inconvenient.

Mr. VENABLE did not think the run upon the bank which the gentleman had mentioned could take place, as the notes would have to be renewed three years from the time issued, and all their notes would not be issued on one day. Mr. V. again insisted that this tax should be general; and if they had not time to make it so, it ought to be put off till they had. Not to include bankers would be to lay a tax upon the people whose complaints of its hardships could not be heard. He deprecated this as unjust.

Mr. HARPER could not conceive that the great body of merchants and farmers throughout the United States were people who could not make their complaints heard, if they had them to make. The proprietors of banks, Mr. H. said, already paid taxes in a variety of shapes; many of them were merchants, and would, of course, pay the tax imposed on the notes of individuals.

Mr. BROOKS was against going into a tax on bank notes at present, but denied that there would be any cause of complaint from the people on account of the taxes imposed by this bill. He wished to make a beginning with a stamp tax at present; it might not be completed these seven years. Gentlemen might as well go on and propose a tax on newspapers, which, whatever might be said against it, he believed might be laid without infringing the liberty of the press; but a thing of this kind would require a great deal of detail.

Mr. CLAIBORNE was in favor of including bank notes; not to do this, he said, would be to catch _small fish_, and let the _large ones_ pass.

Mr. GALLATIN said that the provisions for laying this tax would be by no means difficult. Indeed, three-fourths of the bill was copied from the British statute, and that part respecting bank notes could be as easy copied as any other part. The observations respecting the charter of the Bank of the United States, were not deserving of a reply. There was only one of two things which could be done, either to tax bank notes, or to excuse all other notes from the tax.

Mr. SITGREAVES could not submit to hear that it was the intention of those who opposed this motion, to screen the moneyed interest of this country from paying a tax. He had no such views. He had no objection to tax the banks in proportion to the amount of their business; but he could not agree to its being done in this way. If gentlemen would estimate how much the stamp duty of a bank would produce to the United States, he would vote for a sum of this kind by way of commutation. Charges could rarely be made against the side of the House with whom he generally acted, for not being willing to vote for revenue; a contrary charge was more frequently made. He trusted the amendment would not be agreed to; but that if the tax were laid, it would be by way of commutation.

The question was taken and carried, there being 55 votes in favor of it.

The committee rose and had leave to sit again.

The resolution respecting an adjournment was received from the Senate, and disagreed to. The disagreement being read, Mr. GILES moved the same resolution filled with Monday next; but Mr. WILLIAMS opposed it, and moved to adjourn.

THURSDAY, June 29.

_Stamp Duties._

BANK NOTES.

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for imposing stamp duties, when the clause of Mr. GALLATIN yesterday proposed to the committee, on the subject of bank notes, being under consideration,

Mr. OTIS supposed that at least two-thirds of the whole amount of paper issued by the banks, returned and were re-issued every year, and thus the banks must pay tax upon two-thirds of their capital in the first year after the law passed, and which, according to a rough calculation, relation being had to the different denominations of notes, amount to nearly one per cent. on their capital. The tax ought to be levied upon such new notes only as should be issued hereafter; all that were now in existence were protected by the charter, and any law relating to them would be retrospective; and as one-fifth of the whole number of notes would be renewed every year, a tax upon them would be found to bear as hard as upon other notes and bills, which seldom comprised more than the fifth part of the transactions of an individual. It ought also to be considered, that the paper issued by the bank generally became worn and dirty, and incapable of receiving a stamp, so that in less than two years the whole amount of paper must be re-issued, and the entire tax assessed in the same period. This plan would also be inconsistent with that of a commutation, which had been proposed.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) did not think that this proposition precluded the provision of a commutation. He was in favor of taxing bank notes, but he wished also to hold out a commutation, and such a one as should induce all the banks to embrace it; for, if this were not the case, they would not be taxed equally, as the notes of banks did not bear a just proportion to the amount of their dividends. This clause would not, therefore, preclude the commutation, but render it proper, and a clause could be brought in excusing such banks from the duty as came into the proposed plan.

Mr. GALLATIN said, his ideas corresponded exactly with those of the gentleman who had just spoken. The scheme suggested by the gentleman from Massachusetts, of not taxing the notes at present in circulation, would excuse bank notes from all tax, as, according to his own account, only about one-fifth of the notes issued came in in the course of a year, so that it would be five years before a new tax could operate upon all their notes, and it was probable the bill might not pass for more than three or four. That gentleman supposed that bankers' notes ought not to be charged more than others; if this were the case, they might be reckoned to run for four or five years, while those of individuals were at six and twelve months. The note of an individual, for fifty dollars, was to pay ten cents; he calculated a bank note, therefore, for a like sum, which he supposed, upon an average, to run four years, thirty cents.

With respect to the notes at present in circulation, Mr. G. said, they ought all to be called in before a certain time, and after that day no note should be negotiable which was not stamped.

The gentleman from Massachusetts was not correct when he said that this tax would amount to one per cent. upon the capital employed in banks. The calculation of the amount of the tax upon a bank which he had made, would amount to $10,000 a year, whereas one per cent. upon the capital of the Bank of the United States would amount to $200,000; but he said (as he had before stated) that the notes issued by a bank were not equal to its capital, or any thing like it. He could not, indeed, say what the amount of the notes of the Bank of the United States might be which were received for duty, from one end of the United States to the other; but he knew banks in general, in large cities, did not employ more than two-fifths of their capital in this way. He knew it to be a fact with respect to a bank of the largest property in the United States, except the Bank of the United States. He thought of proposing the commutation to be one per cent. upon the amount of the dividend paid by each bank, which he supposed would be deemed a reasonable sum.

Mr. OTIS explained.

Mr. SEWALL thought the observation of the gentleman from Connecticut yesterday, as to the nature of bank notes, had weight. He agreed with him that they were very different from the notes of individuals, as they were always obliged to keep cash in readiness to take up their notes, while individuals, knowing exactly the time when the money for theirs would be wanted, could make use of it in the mean time. Therefore, if they taxed bank notes, they ought not to tax them in the same proportion with those of individuals at a certain date. Notes of individuals, under twenty dollars, were to be exempt from duty, while every note issued by a bank was proposed to be taxed.

Every banker's note of fifty dollars was to be charged with thirty cents, while those of individuals, which might run for two or three years, were charged only with ten cents. Every three or four years they would have to pay this sum. If a fair commutation were to be made, they should first fix the tax upon just principles.

Mr. NICHOLAS thought if there was no objection to the commutation, there could not reasonably be any made to the tax, because if the commutation were reasonable they would not choose to pay the tax; but, if they should choose to pay the tax, instead of the commutation, it would be evidence that the tax was too low.

Mr. W. SMITH did not see the force of the argument of the gentleman last up. As the commutation was to bear some proportion to the rates of duty, it became necessary to fix the rates upon a fair basis. If the rates were fixed too high, they ought to reduce them. He did not see the propriety of selecting moneyed corporations for the purpose of laying a high duty upon them. He moved to strike out the three cents for every five dollars, and leave it a blank.

Mr. DAYTON hoped this proposition would be agreed to, as by a vote upon the question in blank they would fix the principle whether or not bank notes were to be taxed, and the scale could be afterwards fixed. If there was the difference alleged between bank notes and the notes of individuals, it would be sufficiently considered in the commutation. He should not, indeed, be willing to agree to any scale without a commutation, for the reason he had before mentioned. For, said he, take the Bank of the United States and the Bank of North America, and the notes issued by them bear no sort of proportion to their respective capitals. If the tax were to be laid upon the notes issued, the Bank of the United States would pay a much larger sum than the other in duty.

Mr. GALLATIN observed that the gentleman from South Carolina had said they were about to select moneyed corporations as objects on which to lay a high duty. He had made a calculation to show that this was not the case, but that what was proposed was no more than just and reasonable, and that instead of the tax being one per cent. upon their capital, it was not more than one twentieth or one twenty-fifth part of one per cent.

He would state the facts, and beg gentlemen to correct him where he was mistaken. In the first place he would state the capital of all the banks of the United States at $20,000,000; the whole amount of bank notes at less than $8,000,000. He would divide these $8,000,000, one-half into notes under fifty dollars, and one-half above that sum as follows:

$4,000,000 in notes under fifty dollars,
which would give about
eighty thousand notes, (for though
they would be of different sizes
they paid in the same proportion,)
at thirty cents, $24,000
$2,000,000 of one hundred dollars
and upwards, at fifty cents, 10,000
$2,000,000 of three hundred dollars
and upwards, 4,000
-------
$38,000
Allow for mistakes, 2,000
-------
Which includes all the notes in circulation
in the United States, $40,000

As to the principle of taxation itself, that bank notes of fifty dollars should pay thirty cents when notes of individuals only pay ten cents, justice requires the difference, on the same principle that notes of sixty days had been charged with only two-fifths of the duty charged upon others.

Mr. G. stated the following account of a bank in Philadelphia, whose capital was $2,000,000, and to which Government owed nothing; which, he said, would apply to every other bank in the same circumstances, with little variation:

To the original fund, $2,000,000 To deposits, about 900,000 To bank notes, 600,000 ---------- Total debts, $3,500,000 ---------- By notes discounted, $3,000,000[20] By cash in vault, 500,000 ---------- Total credits, $3,500,000 ----------

As banks were thus able to transact business to the amount of three millions of dollars, though their original fund was only two millions, he accounted for their sharing dividends of nine per cent. on their stock. It would be observed that the two millions capital were not touched for notes, and yet they were charged with selecting these bodies of men upon whom to lay a heavy tax.

Mr. G. concluded by saying he had no prejudice against banks. He knew they were liable to abuse, but, upon the whole, he believed them to be useful. He believed the scale he had formed was correct, but should withdraw it for the present, in order to give an opportunity of trying the principle.

FRIDAY, June 30.

_Duties on Stamps._

The proposition of Mr. GALLATIN for admitting of a composition from the banks in lieu of the tax, came next under consideration--the blank in which was moved to be filled with one per cent.; when

Mr. W. SMITH said, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania was right in his calculation yesterday, the whole amount of duties arising from the banks would be $8,000 a year, and therefore they ought not to go farther in fixing the composition, whereas one per cent., according to the same statement, will produce more than double that sum; for, if the whole capital of the banks in the United States be twenty millions, and their average dividend ten per cent., that will produce two millions, which at one per cent. will give $20,000. He therefore moved, in order to bring the matter nearer to a fair equivalent, to strike out one per cent. and insert one-half per cent.

Mr. NICHOLAS said what the duty would produce was uncertain; they could with more correctness say, that one per cent. was a reasonable composition on the dividends, than what might be produced by the duty. He knew of no tax laid upon property that could be made for less than five per cent. to clear the expense of making it.

Mr. W. SMITH thought they should first fix the rates to be paid on bank notes before they determined upon the composition.

Mr. GALLATIN said, when the rates were before under consideration, the gentleman from South Carolina objected to it, because, if fixed too high, he said it would influence the composition. He therefore moved to have it struck out; but now, when a composition was under consideration, he turns round and says it would be better first to fix the rates. He thought one per cent. a reasonable composition, and that it would be best first to fix that.

Mr. SMITH denied that he wanted first to fix the composition; it was his wish to strike out the rates, to reduce them, that he moved to leave the sum blank.

The question was put and carried, there being 54 votes in favor of it.

Mr. GALLATIN then renewed his motion for fixing the scale of duty to be paid on bank notes. It was, on notes not exceeding fifty dollars, three cents for every five dollars; those not exceeding one hundred dollars, fifty cents; those above one hundred dollars, and not exceeding five hundred dollars, one dollar; for all above five hundred dollars, two dollars.

Mr. DAYTON said there were many notes under five dollars, for which there was no provision.

Mr. GALLATIN thought "the rate of" would have included the small ones; and, to dissipate every doubt on the subject, he moved to replace "three cents for every five dollars," with "three-fifths of a cent for every dollar."

Carried, 39 to 24.[21]

MONDAY, July 3.

The bill for laying a stamp duty was read a third time, and the blanks filled up, viz: that for fixing the time of the act taking effect, with the 31st day of December next; the fine and imprisonment for counterfeiting stamps, &c., with $1,000 and seven years' imprisonment; and the time for which the duration of the act was limited, with five years.

The yeas and nays being taken on the passage of the bill, were--yeas 47, nays 41, as follows:

YEAS.--John Allen, James A. Bayard, David Brooks, James
Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, James
Davenport, John Dennis, Geo. Dent, Thomas Evans, Abiel
Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, James Gillespie,
Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger
Griswold, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas
Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, Samuel Lyman,
James Machir, William Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R.
Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Elisha R. Potter, John Read, John
Rutledge, jun., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William
Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah
Smith, Nathaniel Smith, William Smith, (of Charleston,)
George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thomson, John E. Van
Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.

NAYS.--George Baer, jr., Abraham Baldwin, David Bard,
Lemuel Benton, Thos. Blount, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges,
Samuel J. Cabell, Christopher G. Champlin, Thomas
Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis,
John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, John Fowler, Albert
Gallatin, Jonathan N. Havens, David Holmes, Walter Jones,
Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel
Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge,
Anthony New, John Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Thompson J.
Skinner, William Smith, (of Pinckney District,) Richard
Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg,
John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham
Venable, and Robert Williams.

TUESDAY, July 4.

_Duty on Salt._

Mr. ALLEN called up the resolution he yesterday laid upon the table, for laying an additional duty on salt.

Mr. GALLATIN moved to postpone the consideration of this resolution until the second Monday in November.

Some debate took place on this question; and, when it came to be taken, the House was equally divided, there being 43 votes for the postponement, and 43 against it. The SPEAKER decided against the postponement, and the resolution was referred to a Committee of the Whole immediately.

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on this resolution; when

Mr. ALLEN moved the blank cents per bushel be filled with twelve.

Mr. SWANWICK wished the sum to be seven.

Mr. ALLEN consented to make it eight.

Mr. SITGREAVES hoped it would be twelve.

The question was first taken upon twelve, and negatived, there being only 30 votes for it. It was next taken upon eight, and carried, 47 to 42, and then upon the resolution as amended, and carried by the same numbers.

The committee rose, and the House took up the resolution.

After a few words from Mr. LYON against the tax, and from Mr. WILLIAMS in favor of it,

Mr. W. SMITH went at considerable length into a defence of the measure, in the course of which, he said, they had already agreed upon appropriations to the amount of $700,000 or $800,000, and were not certain of any revenue to meet the expenditure. The license act, he believed, might produce from $50,000 to $60,000, and the stamp act from $100,000 to $150,000, if they should be passed; but he considered this as doubtful. But if these laws were passed, this tax on salt was necessary to keep up the equilibrium of taxation;[22] for the stamp act would almost exclusively fall upon commerce and large cities; this would principally be felt by the agricultural part of the Union; and, if it were not agreed to, they must have a land tax.

Mr. SHEPARD said, no tax would operate so equally as a salt tax, as every citizen must make use of it in a smaller or larger quantity.

Mr. GALLATIN opposed this tax on the same ground which he heretofore opposed it, as oppressive to certain parts of the Union, and no way affecting others, and therefore wholly unequal, and particularly as it bore heavy on the poorer classes of society. He was against it also, because it was not proposed that the amount of this tax should go towards a reduction of the public debt, but merely to encourage expense in the Government; for he believed if they filled the Treasury with money, means would be found to expend it. Indeed, if the Treasury had not been at present in rather a low state, he believed they should have gone into most of the expensive measures proposed to them this session. He allowed the tax would be productive, as a tax upon bread, air, or any necessary of life, must be productive. If this tax, however, were to be agreed to, he should wish to make an amendment to the present proposition. At present the drawback allowed to the New England States, on account of salt used in the fisheries, amounted to about $90,000 a year, though by the statements it appeared there should only have been allowed $50,000. To rectify this, he proposed the following proviso to be added to the resolution, viz:

_Provided_, That the allowance now given upon vessels
employed in the fisheries, shall not be increased.

This amendment was opposed by Messrs. HARPER, SEWALL, DANA, and KITTERA, on the ground of its being an unfair way of introducing the proposition, as no one expected it; they were not prepared to meet it; the correctness of the statement was doubted; and, if it were correct, it was said, the proper way of doing the business would not be to pass the present law without a drawback, but to reduce the former drawback and make it less on this occasion.

The motion was supported by the mover, and Messrs. VENABLE and LIVINGSTON; but, after some discussion, Mr. GALLATIN withdrew it, in order to give gentlemen time to make themselves acquainted with the fact he had stated; but he expressed his intention of renewing the proposition when the bill came in.

The question then returned upon the original resolution; when

Mr. HARPER went at length into a defence of the measure, (in the course of which he charged Mr. GALLATIN with being mistaken $12,000 as to the amount of the drawback allowed,) and insisted that it was a fair and proper tax, and that so small an advance upon the present duty could not operate oppressively upon any part of the community.

Mr. NICHOLAS followed in opposition. He dwelt considerably on the unjust and unequal manner in which this tax would operate. He said he did not view this question as deciding merely whether an additional tax of eight cents should be laid upon salt; but whether that necessary of life should be called upon for every thing Government should want. He was in favor of a direct tax, which should fall equally, though it might, in the origin, be attended with some considerable expense; but, if they went on raising partial sums in this way by indirect means, the expense of instituting a direct tax would always be an obstacle, and indirect taxes would always be had recourse to. He did not believe it to be absolutely necessary to provide a revenue this session, as he believed money might as well be borrowed without as with additional revenue, and at the next session, the subject could be fully gone into.

Mr. LYON spoke of the discontent which had always been shown in the part of the country from whence he came, which, he said, would be greatly increased by this addition. It was not only a duty of eight cents, every cent would be made four before the salt reached them. There was no kind of tax which his constituents would not sooner bear. It had been said that a land tax would cost twenty-five per cent. to collect it; but what was twenty-five compared with three hundred per cent.? Nor did he believe this tax would prevent a land tax. He believed they should go on taxing the people until they would be greatly dissatisfied. He would much rather a tax of eight cents was laid upon tea, which would produce an equal sum.

The question was taken by yeas and nays, and decided in the affirmative--47 to 41.

WEDNESDAY, July 5.

_Duty on Salt._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill for laying an additional duty on salt; when

Mr. GALLATIN moved to strike out all that related to the allowing of a drawback to vessels employed in the fishing trade, on the ground that he yesterday stated, viz: that the allowance at present made was too large by $40,000 a year, taking the year 1794 for his data; but it appeared that in the year 1795 there was a deficiency in that trade, owing principally, it was supposed, to the great demand for seamen in the merchant service. He, therefore, would take the calculation of the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. HARPER,) made yesterday, and, instead of calling the amount of drawback allowed $90,000, he would state it to be $78,000; and even then, he said, the drawback at present allowed would exceed by two thousand dollars the drawback to which they would be entitled, if the present duty took place.

He spoke generally against the tax as oppressive to the back country; but if the gentleman from Massachusetts, and others, were determined to increase the tax, he should wish their part of the country to pay their share of it.

This motion was supported by Messrs. VENABLE, NICHOLAS, CLAY, MCDOWELL, and MACON.

It was opposed by Messrs. SEWALL, OTIS, HARPER, COIT, BROOKS, KITTERA, J. WILLIAMS, and DAYTON.

The calculation of the quantity of salt estimated to be necessary to be used for a quintal of fish, (one bushel,) was said to be stated too low; that the sum allowed was not only meant as a drawback of the duty, but also as a bounty on the fishing trade--as being a nursery for seamen, and serving as a kind of naval militia for the United States.

If it should appear, however, that the present allowance was too great, (which, by some gentlemen in favor of this motion, which was in blank, seemed to be acknowledged,) a less allowance might be made in this bill; but they could not consent to the bill passing without a drawback.

The question for striking out the clause was taken, and negatived--49 to 41.

Mr. COIT moved to fill the blank with 50 per cent., instead of 66-2/3, which was the drawback allowed by the present law.

Mr. HARTLEY thought this sum too high.

Mr. WILLIAMS moved 33-1/3 per cent. which was carried without a division.

Mr. NICHOLAS moved a limitation clause, to continue the act in force for two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress.

This motion was carried--42 to 39.

The committee rose, and the House agreed to the amendments. The yeas and nays were called upon the limitation clause, and were taken, and stood--yeas 47, nays 43.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading this day; and before the House rose, it received it, and passed. The yeas and nays on its passage stood 45 to 40, as follows:

YEAS.--John Allen, James A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen
Bullock, John Chapman, Christopher G. Champlin, Joshua
Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, James Davenport, John
Dennis, George Dent, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight
Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich,
Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, William Hindman,
Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera,
Samuel Lyman, William Matthews, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison
G. Otis, Elisha R. Potter, John Read, John Rutledge, jun.,
James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas
Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel
Smith, William Smith, (of Charleston,) John Swanwick,
George Thatcher, Mark Thompson, John E. Van Allen, Peleg
Wadsworth, and John Williams.

NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas
Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Samuel
J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton,
Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, John
Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Wm. B. Grove,
John A. Hanna, Jonathan N. Havens, David Holmes, Walter
Jones, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair
McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Daniel Morgan,
Anthony New, John Nicholas, Thompson J. Skinner, William
Smith, (of Pinckney District,) Richard Sprigg, jun.,
Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg,
Joseph B. Varnum, and Robert Williams.

SATURDAY, July 8.

_Laws in the German Language._

Mr. HOLMES said that he thought it necessary, in order to enforce a general compliance with the laws of the United States, that they should be printed in the German language, as well as in the English, since there were very many inhabitants in this country who could read no other. He therefore proposed a resolution to the following effect:

"_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States_, That a number of copies of the laws of
this session, not exceeding eight thousand copies, shall be
printed in the German language, and distributed by the
Secretary of State amongst the Executives of the several
States, for the information of the German inhabitants of
each State respectively."

Mr. LYON thought it would be proper to pass a resolution of this kind. He did not know what number might be necessary. He also thought that some measures should be taken for a general publication of their laws in the English language; at present, it was merely by chance if the people in his district came to a knowledge of them. He thought all laws of general import should be inserted in every newspaper throughout the Union.

Mr. COIT said if they were to promulge their laws in the German language, it would be necessary that they should all become critically acquainted with it, for if they were to authorize any translation, great mischiefs might arise from its not being correct.

Mr. GALLATIN said that the weight of the objection urged by the gentleman last up, had always been thought sufficient in the Legislature of Pennsylvania, in which State there was a greater proportion of Germans than in any other. There was also another objection to the measure. If it were to be passed, it must be accompanied with an appropriation law, which the advanced state of the session would not admit.

The resolution was put and negatived.

MONDAY, July 10.

On motion of Mr. DENT, a committee was appointed to wait upon the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in conjunction with a like committee from the Senate, to inform him the two Houses were about to adjourn. The committee waited upon the PRESIDENT accordingly, and reported his acquiescence, and his good wishes for the safe arrival of the members at their several homes.

On motion of Mr. SITGREAVES, the resolution entered into some time ago, calling upon the PRESIDENT for an account of the quantity of arms in the possession of the United States, and at what place they were lodged, was suspended.

Mr. S. said, he wished to make a report upon a subject which would require the galleries to be cleared. He, therefore, moved that they be cleared, and the doors were closed for the remainder of the sitting, at the conclusion of which the House adjourned till the second Monday in November next.[23]

FIFTH CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, NOVEMBER 13, 1797.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

MONDAY, November 13, 1797.

The second session of the fifth Congress of the United States commenced this day, at the city of Philadelphia, conformably to law; and the Senate assembled accordingly in their Chamber.

PRESENT:

SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire. THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode Island. URIAH TRACY, from Connecticut. ELIJAH PAINE, from Vermont. WILLIAM BINGHAM, from Pennsylvania. HUMPHREY MARSHALL, from Kentucky. ALEXANDER MARTIN and TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH, from North Carolina. JACOB READ, from South Carolina.

The number of members present not being sufficient to constitute a quorum, the Senate adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.

TUESDAY, November 14.

JOHN LAURANCE, from the State of New York, and HENRY LATIMER, from the State of Delaware, severally attended.

The number of members present not being sufficient to constitute a quorum, the Senate adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, November 15.

BENJAMIN GOODHUE, from the State of Massachusetts, attended.

The number of members present not being sufficient to constitute a quorum, the Senate adjourned.

THURSDAY, November 16.

The Senate assembled, and the number of members present not being sufficient to constitute a quorum, the Senate adjourned.

FRIDAY, November 17.

JOHN LANGDON, from the State of New Hampshire, attended.

The number of members present not being sufficient to constitute a quorum, the Senate adjourned.

SATURDAY, November 18.

No quorum being present, the Senate adjourned.

MONDAY, November 20.

JAMES GUNN, from the State of Georgia, attended.

No quorum being present, adjourned.

TUESDAY, November 21.

RAY GREENE, appointed a Senator by the State of Rhode Island, in the place of WILLIAM BRADFORD, resigned, produced his credentials.

RICHARD STOCKTON, from the State of New Jersey, attended.

No quorum being present, the Senate adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, November 22.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the choice of a President _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides; and JACOB READ was duly elected.

JOSEPH ANDERSON, appointed a Senator by the State of Tennessee, for the remainder of the term which the late Senator WILLIAM BLOUNT had drawn, and was entitled to have served, produced his credentials; which were read.

NATHANIEL CHIPMAN, appointed a Senator by the State of Vermont, in the place of ISAAC TICHENOR, elected Governor, produced his credentials; which were read.

The credentials of RAY GREENE were read.

ANDREW JACKSON, appointed a Senator by the State of Tennessee, produced his credentials; which were read.

The oath required by law was administered by the PRESIDENT, to Messrs. ANDERSON, CHIPMAN, GREENE, and JACKSON, they having severally taken their seats in the Senate.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that a quorum of the House is assembled, and ready to proceed to business.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and are ready to proceed to business; and that, in the absence of the VICE-PRESIDENT, they have elected JACOB READ, President of the Senate _pro tempore_.

_Resolved_, That each Senator be supplied, during the present session, with copies of three such newspapers, printed in any of the States, as he may choose, provided that the same are furnished at the rate of the usual annual charge for such papers.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that the House have appointed a joint committee on their part, together with such committee as the Senate may appoint, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

_Resolved_, That the Senate do concur in the appointment of a joint committee, and that Messrs. BINGHAM and TRACY be the committee on the part of the Senate.

_Resolved_, That two Chaplains be appointed to Congress for the present session, one by each House, who shall interchange weekly; and that the Right Rev. Bishop WHITE be Chaplain on the part of the Senate.

Mr. BINGHAM reported, from the joint committee, that they had waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and had notified him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled; and that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES acquainted the committee that he would meet the two Houses, in the Representatives' Chamber, at 12 o'clock to-morrow.

THURSDAY, November 23.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House are now ready to meet the Senate in the Chamber of that House, to receive such communications as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES shall please to make them.

The Senate then repaired to the Chamber of the House of Representatives for the purpose above expressed.

The Senate returned to their own Chamber, and a copy of the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, this day addressed to both Houses of Congress, was read:

_Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
Representatives_:

I was for some time apprehensive that it would be
necessary, on account of the contagious sickness which
afflicted the city of Philadelphia, to convene the National
Legislature at some other place. This measure it was
desirable to avoid, because it would occasion much public
inconvenience, and a considerable public expense, and add
to the calamities of the inhabitants of this city, whose
sufferings must have excited the sympathy of all their
fellow-citizens. Therefore, after taking measures to
ascertain the state and decline of the sickness, I
postponed my determination, having hopes, now happily
realized, that, without hazard to the lives or health of
the members, Congress might assemble at this place, where
it was next by law to meet. I submit, however, to your
consideration, whether a power to postpone the meeting of
Congress, without passing the time fixed by the
constitution, upon such occasions, would not be a useful
amendment to the law of one thousand seven hundred and
ninety-four.

Although I cannot yet congratulate you on the
re-establishment of peace in Europe, and the restoration of
security to the persons and properties of our citizens from
injustice and violence at sea, we have nevertheless
abundant cause of gratitude to the Source of Benevolence
and Influence, for interior tranquillity and personal
security, for propitious seasons, prosperous agriculture,
productive fisheries, and general improvements; and, above
all, for a rational spirit of civil and religious liberty,
and a calm, but steady determination to support our
sovereignty, as well as our moral and religious principles,
against all open and secret attacks.

Our Envoys Extraordinary to the French Republic embarked,
one in July, the other early in August, to join their
colleague in Holland.[24] I have received intelligence of
the arrival of both of them in Holland, from whence they
all proceeded on their journey to Paris, within a few days
of the nineteenth of September. Whatever may be the result
of this mission, I trust that nothing will have been
omitted on my part, to conduct the negotiation to a
successful conclusion, on such equitable terms as may be
compatible with the safety, honor, and interests of the
United States. Nothing, in the mean time, will contribute
so much to the preservation of peace, and the attainment of
justice, as a manifestation of that energy and unanimity of
which, on many former occasions, the people of the United
States have given such memorable proofs, and the exertion
of those resources for national defence, which a beneficent
Providence has kindly placed within their power.

It may be confidently asserted, that nothing has occurred
since the adjournment of Congress, which renders
inexpedient those precautionary measures recommended by me
to the consideration of the two Houses, at the opening of
your late extraordinary session. If that system was then
prudent, it is more so now, as increasing depredations
strengthen the reasons for its adoption.

Indeed, whatever may be the issue of the negotiation with
France, and whether the war in Europe is or is not to
continue, I hold it most certain that perfect tranquillity
and order will not soon be obtained. The state of society
has so long been disturbed; the sense of moral and
religious obligations so much weakened; public faith and
national honor have been so impaired; respect to treaties
has been so diminished, and the law of nations has lost so
much of its force; while pride, ambition, avarice, and
violence, have been so long unrestrained, there remains no
reasonable ground on which to raise an expectation, that a
commerce, without protection or defence, will not be
plundered.

The commerce of the United States is essential, if not to
their existence, at least to their comfort, their growth,
prosperity, and happiness. The genius, character, and
habits of the people are highly commercial; their cities
have been founded, and exist, upon commerce; our
agriculture, fisheries, arts, and manufactures, are
connected with and depend upon it; in short, commerce has
made this country what it is, and it cannot be destroyed or
neglected without involving the people in poverty and
distress; great numbers are directly and solely supported
by navigation--the faith of society is pledged for the
preservation of the rights of commercial, and seafaring, no
less than of the other citizens. Under this view of our
affairs, I should hold myself guilty of a neglect of duty,
if I forbore to recommend that we should make every
exertion to protect our commerce, and to place our country
in a suitable posture of defence, as the only sure means of
preserving both.

I have entertained an expectation, that it would have been
in my power, at the opening of this session, to have
communicated to you the agreeable information of the due
execution of our treaty with His Catholic Majesty,
respecting the withdrawing of his troops from our
territory, and the demarkation of the line of limits; but
by the latest authentic intelligence, Spanish garrisons
were still continued within the limits of our country, and
the running of the boundary line had not been commenced.
These circumstances are the more to be regretted, as they
cannot fail to affect the Indians in a manner injurious to
the United States; still, however, indulging the hope that
the answers which have been given, will remove the
objections offered by the Spanish officers to the immediate
execution of the treaty, I have judged it proper that we
should continue in readiness to receive the posts, and to
run the line of limits. Further information on this subject
will be communicated in the course of the session.

In connection with the unpleasant state of things on our
western frontier, it is proper for me to mention the
attempts of foreign agents to alienate the affections of
the Indian nations, and to excite them to actual
hostilities against the United States; great activity has
been exerted by these persons, who have insinuated
themselves among the Indian tribes, residing within the
territory of the United States, to influence them, to
transfer their affections and force to a foreign nation, to
form them into a confederacy, and prepare them for war,
against the United States.

Although measures have been taken to counteract these
infractions of our rights, to prevent Indian hostilities,
and to preserve their attachment to the United States, it
is my duty to observe, that, to give a better effect to
these measures, and to obviate the consequences of a
repetition of such practices, a law, providing adequate
punishment for such offences, may be necessary.

The Commissioners appointed under the fifth article of the
Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, between the
United States and Great Britain, to ascertain the river,
which was truly intended, under the name of the St. Croix,
mentioned in the Treaty of Peace, met at Passamaquoddy Bay
in October, 1796, and viewed the mouths of the rivers in
question, and the adjacent shores and islands; and being
of opinion, that actual surveys of both rivers to their
sources, were necessary, gave the agents of the two nations
instructions for that purpose, and adjourned to meet at
Boston in August; they met; but the surveys, requiring more
time than had been supposed, and not being then completed,
the Commissioners again adjourned to meet at Providence, in
the State of Rhode Island, in June next, when we may expect
a final examination and decision.