Bank was willing to receive a part of the money only at present; but of this they had no official information. The Committee appointed to confer with the Senate, have taken some pains to inquire into this subject, and a gentleman in the Senate (who he believed, was a Director of the Bank,) had informed them, that provided the Bank stock was not sold the Bank would be satisfied with two and a-half millions at present; but, if it were to be sold, they must have the whole amount paid them. This was the condition; and, not thinking it right to agree to any condition of that sort, they had made provision for paying the whole, viz: one half by the Bank stock and the other half by the six per cent. stock, under a supposition that the Bank stock will at least sell for one hundred and twenty-five. This, he said, was the ground upon which the compromise took place. They thought it better to do this than agree to sell half of the six per cent. stock under par, and take out the clause which authorized the selling of the Bank stock, as they thought that power vested in the Commissioners might be a means of getting the full price for the six per cent. stock. If this accommodation had not taken place, Mr. G. said, the bill would have been lost, and the Bank must have been paid with the revenues which would be wanted for paying the current expenses. Whatever difference of opinion there might be amongst them, they must agree in the necessity of having the money. The Committee thought it best to come to this condition. It would be a lesson to them, in future, he trusted, to raise a revenue equal to their wants. Upon the whole, he did not believe they could make any better condition with the Senate. They had agreed to it, and he hoped it would be adopted. Mr. NICHOLAS said, he had objections to selling the six per cent. stock under par; but, his objections were in some degree lessened by one half the quantity created being only sold at that price. and that the remainder of the debt due to this Bank was to be paid by a sale of the Bank stock; as this would have an operation to keep up the price of the other stock. But how did they stand? The Senate and that House were parties to pay a third party. We cannot, said he, say to the Bank we will not pay you, except you will be paid in a certain manner. We must pay them in a manner to which they cannot object. They had, therefore, been obliged to agree to the present accommodation. [MAY, 1796. per cent. stock should be sold, at the best price which could be got for it; whilst it was the opinion of a majority of that House that the Bank stock should be sold, and only so much of the other as would sell at par. However, some agreement was necessary, and the present was the best they could make. He should, therefore, vote for agreeing to the report, though he disliked the mode to be adopted in paying this debt. Mr. N. declared he had no enmity to the Bank; his whole object was to raise money on the best terms. As to their connexion with the Bank, if it was not a good one. it was not the fault of the Bank. Government, he said, was under obligations to the Bank; he thought the Legislature only to blame for having agreed to the connexion. Mr. Cort said, since they were five millions in debt, it was necessary it should be paid. Gentlemen who were opposed to this mode should propose another, which they thought better. If they owe five millions, two millions of Bank stock will not pay it, it was necessary therefore to sell a part of the six per cent. stock. But the objection was that that stock was to be sold under par. But if it would not sell at par, and the debt must be paid, and it was our duty to pay it, what remedy was there? He saw none. Mr. W. SMITH said, he was not displeased with the present discussion, because he had no doubt that gentlemen who lamented so pathetically our being in debt, would feel themselves under an obligation to bring forward and support some effectual measures at the next session for raising more efficient revenues, and for discharging our debts. It did not follow, he said, because the six per cent. stock was permitted to be sold below par, if necessity required it, that it would be sold under par. He hoped it would not. And he said, if they were, on this occasion, under the necessity of selling this stock under par, he saw no reason for so much squeamishness; they had frequently purchased their own stock under par. Gentlemen had, on a former occasion, felt no apprehension of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund selling the Bank stock for less than its value, and they need not fear that the six per cent. stock would be sacrificed. He thought the bill a good one now, were it not for the clause about the Bank stock being in it. He wished the conferees had struck it out." Mr. SWANWICK said, if he thought as the gentleman last up appeared to do, that the establishment of the principle of selling Government stock He should wish that the United States should under par, would have no injurious effect upon smart in this instance, that they might be careful public credit, he should not be so firmly opposed how they came into such a situation in future. to it; but, because he thought the question big He cared not how much they suffered, that they with alarming danger to this country, he should might be induced to leave their present trifling sys- continue his opposition to the measure. What tem of taxation, and have recourse to one that was the system established? They passed a numcould be relied upon. He saw no alternative but ber of laws, authorizing money to be borrowed at to agree to the present report. That House was at six per cent. and authorizing the Bank to lend on variance with the Senate, and if they lost the bill, those terms; but when the Bank is to be paid they they might get a worse, for the Committee from come forward, and offer for sale stock bearing an the Senate wished to get rid of their own amend-interest of six per cent. at any price under par. ment. It was the opinion of the Senate that the What a dangerous principle this as to any chance Bank stock ought not to be sold, but that the six of obtaining revenue for the Government! Mem bers would always pass loan bills with great ease; but if they were to lay taxes they would look more sharply around them. No one seemed to think with so much dread on borrowing as on taxation. [H. OF R which was to sell the Bauk stock. Two millions and a half of six per cent. stock were, by this proposed modification of the business, to be brought into market and sold for what it would bring; and, if this were to be done, he doubted much whether it would sell for more than 168. in the pound. This he considered as a very great loss to the public, which ought, if possible, to be avoided. He did not think that the irredeemability of the stock, which had been one of the proposed conditions upon which it had been created, could be considered as adding much to its present value; an irredeemable quality annexed to stock could be supposed to add much to its value only not the case at present, as must be evident, when the Government was driven to the necessity of giving an extravagant premium for money, by selling their stock under par. For these reasons, he did not believe that so great a quantity of stock But it was said. we were obliged to give this power to pay our debts; but, would any loss sustained at present discourage Government from again going on with the same system? The ease with which money was borrowed, he feared from the neglect of some and indolence of others, would retard taxation. It would be in vain that the gentleman from South Carolina called upon gentlemen to bring forward systems of taxation, or brought them forward himself, whilst borrow-in such circumstances as where there was plenty ing was encouraged, and so much in vogue. of money to be borrowed, and, comparatively Did the Bank require five millions? He believ-speaking, but few persons to borrow it. This was ed not. They had been told on this floor that they would have been satisfied with two millions. When he was so little squeamish about Bank stock, it was because he knew it must and would be sold above par and of course to a profit. By the insertion of the clause for selling two-offered for sale at once. would bring more than what and-a-half millions of six per cent. stock under par they made the selling of Bank stock unnecessary. And what an enormous power did they propose to give the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund? He was not jealous, he had no reason to be so; but suppose this stock was sold at 16 or 17s.at seventeen shillings in the pound. admitting the in the pound, what would be the consequence? The gentleman from South Carolina pretended to make a limitation with respect to Bank stock, but now nothing was said of limitation, as to the United States six per cent. stock that might be sold at any rate. Much had been said about enmity and friendship for the Bank. He should say nothing on that head. The question was, whether they should give sanction to a new principle in finance; to this power of passing six per cent. stock through the mill? If it should be so determined, he must submit, though he should think the measure a very bad one. Mr. KITCHELL asked, if there was no way of modifying the expression "shall be sold under par?" He did not like the manner of it, though he believed he must vote in favor of it, but he wish ed the phraseology somewhat altered. he had mentioned. He had made a computation, by which it appeared, that if the Bank stuck were to be sold for no more than £114 per cent. which was much above par, it would be equally advantageous as if the six per cent. stock were to be sold present value of Bank stock was £133 1-3 as had been stated. He was persuaded that the Bank stock would sell for more in proportion than six per cent. stock, because individuals would be inclined to purchase it, by reason of its giving them a better credit at the Bank, and enabling them, therefore, to borrow money there with more facility. This must, therefore, keep up the price of Bank stock above the six per cent. stock, and to sell it must, therefore, be a more advantageous mode of discharging the debts of the Government. It did not appear to him, that the reasons which had been given by those who were opposed to the Bank stock, were well-founded. It had been said, that this stock was very valuable. If it was, then there would be less loss in selling it. He could not persuade himselt to believe that it would be any disadvantage to the Government, if they were not to be stockholders in any Bank; he did not Mr. HAVENS said, that he should have consider-doubt but that the Government would be enabled ed the compromise which had been proposed by at all times to obtain loans, by the way of anticithe Committee of Conference between that House pation of its revenues, or on any other condition, and the Senate, as less exceptionable, if it had from the Bank of the United States, or from any been agreed that one-half of the moneys which other Bank with whom it might be thought prowere to be raised for the payment of the debt due per to deposite the public moneys, on the ground to the Bank, had been proposed to be raised by sell-of its general credit, without having recourse to ing the stock intended to be created by the bill for what it would bring in the market, and the other half by the sale of Bank stock to be disposed of in the same manner; but the compromise which had been agreed upon by the Committee, contemplated no such thing; they had agreed that onehalf of the six per cent. only should not be sold under par, and the other half was to be sold for whatever it would bring. This he considered as a total relinquishment of the object which was contemplated by the amendment of the Senate, the scheme of being always stockholders in a Bank to procure credit. The reasons which made it advantageous for individuals to hold stock in a Bank in order to obtain credit, did not apply to the Government, as was evident from the case then under consideration. It had been likewise urged as a reason why we should agree to the proposed compromise with the Senate, that they would not agree to any other modification of the bill; in answer to that he should only say, that the same argument might be urged in the Senate with as much propriety to induce them to agree to the opinion of the House of Representatives, as it could be urged there to induce them to agree to the opinion of the Senate; on a question of compromise the reasoning must apply equally to both Houses. He said, he had heretofore supposed, that there existed some urgent necessity for the public to make considerable sacrifices, in order to discharge this debt; but he now adopted a different opinion, and what had operated very powerfully upon his mind to incline him to this change of sentiment was, the motion which had been made by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. W. SMITH] when he had proposed that the Bank stock should not be sold for less than £133 1-3 per cent. He presumed that gentleman spoke the language or consulted the interests of the Bank in making that motion, and that, therefore, the Bank could not consider themselves as standing in any great need of the money, if they were unwilling that the stock of the Government should be sold, unless at so high a price, when the money thence arising was to be applied to discharge a debt due to them. It appeared evident to him, from that circumstance, that the Bank must view it as less disadvantageous to them to continue their credit to the Government for some time, than to have the Government stock sold in order to discharge the debt; he therefore concluded, that if the bill were to be lost, and the subject were to be again taken up at the next session of Congress, it would be a matter attended with no public inconvenience. For these reasons, he should therefore vote against the report of the Committee. Mr. W. LYMAN said, it appeared to him, that if this bill passed, giving power to the Commisioners of the Sinking Fund to sell one half the six per cent. stock at what they could get, the Bank, who wanted the whole five millions, would first take the one half at par, and then purchase the other at a low price, as being more than an overmatch for any competitor who might come against them, so that no part of the Bank stock would be sold. As to the observations of gentlemen who said they were bound to pay the money, since the Bank required it, he would ask whether, if they were obliged to pay the money, they were obliged also to part with their judgments, because the Senate did not choose to accede to the plan they had agreed upon? The doctrine of being obliged to do a thing, because the Senate would not do so and so, was too often asserted in that House. For his part, when he was convinced he was right, he would never recede from bis opinion. He would disregard the proceedings of the Senate; and, if they would not do what was right, they must be answerable for the consequences. He was ashamed of such arguments as these. He believed the Senate would agree, if they were to adhere to their amendments. He believed that if they directed the Bank stock to be sold, and as much of the other as could be sold at par, ample provision would be made; he therefore, should not agree to the present bill. A gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. NICHOLAS] had said, he should vote for it as a chastisement of our folly; if it was voted for [MAY, 1796. with this view, he believed the end would be attained, because he believed the United States would suffer great loss from a payment of this kind. Mr. W. SMITH would not have risen again, if he had not thought the gentleman last up had misunderstood the business. He had said, it was in the power of the Bank to take the stock at twelve shillings in the pound. On the contrary, Mr. S. said, the Bank could not take any part of the stock under par. They were restricted by their charter from buying stock, and this bill only gave them the power to lend the whole of the five millions, and to subscribe it, but it must be at par. The gentleman's idea of adhering to his own opinion, would do very well in a Government of only one branch, but was not suited to a Government of two, whatever the other branch did, he says he would abide by his opinion. Suppose the gentleman knew for a certainty that the doctrine which he supported would not be agreed to in the Senate. One branch of the Government might insist upon its opinion, and the other upon theirs, and nothing would ever be done. The fault, in this case, would lie upon both, for want of an accommodating spirit. The gentleman said the amendment proposed would prevent the Bank stock from being sold; if it would produce that effect, he should sincerely rejoice. It was not, Mr. S. said, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. HAVENS] had stated it, because he was better acquainted with the wishes of the Bank than other gentlemen, that he proposed the amendment he alluded to. It was not because he knew more of the disposition of the Directors than other gentlemen; but he must own, he would rather sell the six per cent. stock under par, than sell the Bank stock at the present price. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SWANWICK] thought it would be more advantageous to sell Bank stock under par than six per cent. but he was of a far different opinion for the reasons he had before detailed. He hoped the report would be agreed to. The question was taken by yeas and nays, and carried-yeas 45, nays 35, as follows: YEAS.-Fisher Ames, Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, Joshua Coit, William Cooper, George Dent, Samuel Earle, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Albert Gallatin, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Wade Hampton, Carter B. Harrison, John Heath, Daniel Heister, Thomas Henderson, William Hindman, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Madison, Francis Malbone, John Milledge, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, Wm. Vans Murray, John Nicholas, John Reed, John Richards, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Isaac Smith, William Smith, Thomas Sprigg, ZephaTracy, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peleg niah Swift, Geo. Thatcher, Mark Thompson, Uriah Wadsworth, and John Williams. Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, NAYS.-Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, David Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Isaac Coles, Jeremiah Crabb, William Findley, Jesse Franklin, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Christopher Greenup, William Barry Grove, MAY, 1796.] Admission of Tennessee. George Hancock, John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, James Holland, George Jackson, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, Andrew Moore, Anthony New, Robert Rutherford, Israel Smith, Richard Sprigg, jun., John Swanwick, Abraham Venable, and Richard Winn. ADMISSION OF TENNESSEE. [H. OF R. one Representative into that House, until the period of taking the next census all over the Union, and that the laws of the United States should have the same force in the State of Tennessee as in all other parts of the Union. Mr. MACON moved to strike out one Representative and insert two Representatives, to which he thought they were entitled. Mr. GILES, from the committee to whom was This was opposed on all sides, as giving an adreferred the bill from the Senate for erecting the vantage to this State over all others, whose repreTerritory South of the Ohio into one State, and sentation was fixed in the year 1790. The yeas for directing a census to be taken; also, the resolu- and nays were taken, when all the members in tion of the House of Representatives in favor the House were in the negative except Messrs. of admitting that Territory as a State into the FRANKLIN, GREENUP, HOLLAND, MACON, and RuUnion, and the Message from the PRESIDENT ON THERFORD, and the motion was, therefore, lost, the same subject, made a report. This report | 62 to 5. went to change the principle of the bill from the Senate, and, consequently, occasioned considerable debate. The House of Representatives contend that the proceedings of these people had been so far regular, as to authorize the admission of them as a State into the Union; but, by the bill sent from the Senate, it was proposed to lay out the Territory into a State, and order a census to be taken, before they could be admitted. This report of the committee conformed the bill to the opinion heretofore expressed in the House, The report was supported by Messrs. GILES, NICHOLAS, MADISON, GALLATIN, VENABLE, W. LYMAN, and HOLLAND. and opposed by Messrs. W. SMITH, SITGREAVES, THATCHER, COIT, and HARPER. On motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the yeas and nays were taken three times upon this subject: first, upon the first amendment, which went to alter the principle of the bill, by admitting the State into the Union, instead of directing a census to be taken for the purpose. The yeas were 48, nays 30, as follows: YEAS.-Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Isaac Coles, Jeremiah Crabb, Samuel Earle, William Findley, Jesse Franklin, Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Christopher Greenup, William B. Grove, Wade Hampton, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, John Heath, Daniel Heister, James Holland, George Jackson, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Francis Preston, John Richards, Robert Rutherford, Israel Smith, Richard Sprigg, jun., Thomas Sprigg, John Swanwick, Absalom Tatom, Philip Van Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, and Richard Winn. Mr. W. SMITH called for a division of the question, and that part relative to the State being entitled to one Representative, being put, it was carried by the yeas and nays being taken, 41 to 29; the House being divided in the same way as upon the first amendment, except that Messrs. BALDWIN, BRENT, COLES, GILLESPIE, HANCOCK, HEATH, and WINN, who voted in the affirmative on the former question, and Mr. BOURNE, who voted in the negative, were, on this division, out of the House. The other part of this amendment was carried unanimously, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading on Monday. MONDAY, May 30. On motion of Mr. W. LYMAN, the resolution of the Senate, communicated to the House on Saturday, relative to the adjournment of the two Houses on Wednesday next, was taken up, and agreed to, and a committee appointed to join a committee from the Senate to notify the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES that the two Houses intended to adjourn on Wednesday next. The bill entitled an act for the admission of the State of Tennessee into the Union, was read the third time and passed. NEXT MEETING OF CONGRESS. Mr. BOURNE observed, that a motion had already been made, and negatived by a small majority, for appointing a committee to bring in a bill for altering the time of meeting of the next session of Congress. He believed the business which would call the attention of the House in their next session, could not be got through betwixt the first Monday in December and the third of March, particularly as they should then have to determine upon some effectual mode of taxation, in order to meet the necessary expenses of GovernHe, therefore, proposed to the House the NAYS. Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, Joshua Coit, William Cooper, George Dent, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Gris-ment. wold, Robert Goodloe Harper, William Hindman, following resolution: John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, Francis Malbone, William Vans Murray, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Isaac Smith, William Smith, Zephaniah_Swift, George Thatcher, Mark Thompson, Uriah Tracy, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams. The next amendment was the introduction of a clause recognising the right of that State to send "Resolved, That a committee be appointed to report a bill for altering the time of meeting of the next session of Congress." This resolution was opposed by Messrs. NICHO- It was H. or R.] Military and Naval Appropriations. A bill was afterwards reported, twice read, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-day. It afterwards received its third reading, and passed. The time of meeting for the next session was fixed on the first of November. ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS. Mr. W. SMITH, from the Committee of Ways and Means, to whom was referred the Message of the PRESIDENT relative to additional appropriations necessary for foreign correspondence, reported the following resolution: "Resolved, That a further sum of $23,500 be appropriated for the expenses of foreign intercourse for the year 1796." Also, a bill making further appropriations for the year 1796. The bill and resolution were read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole to-day. MILITARY AND NAVAL APPROPRIATIONS. On motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the blank for the sum for the payment of the Army was filled with $273,666. Mr. W. SMITH proposed to fill up the next blank, for the subsistence of the officers of the Army with $68,480. Mr. GALLATIN said, he was not ready to vote for this object. It had been usual to appropriate the subsistence of the officers and non-commissioned officers and privates all in one sum. He did not know what were the separate calculations. Mr. W. SMITH believed that it had been usual to put the two subjects together heretofore, but the Secretary of War had suggested the propriety of placing them under different heads. It was therefore done. Mr. GALLATIN said, when he objected to this plan of putting the two objects together, it was not merely on account of the arrangement, but because he did not know the amount calculated for the different descriptions. He knew, however, the rations were calculated at 30 cents, He would move to fill the blank with 20 cents, which would be two-thirds of the amount proposed. He would give his reasons for thus filling the blank. It would be found, by a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury at the commencement of the session, that, in the estimate for the Military department, rations were charged 15 cents each, making the whole subsistence for 6,000 men $367,061; notwithstanding the nominal Army Establishment had been reduced one-half, the total amount of expense was estimated as high as before. The items upon which an increase had been made, were subsistence, hospital, ordnance, and quartermaster's departments, and protection of frontiers. It would be found that, in the second | estimate of the Secretary, lately made, rations were estimated at 30 cents each, which made the whole amount of subsistence $437,762. This difference in the estimate led the Com mittee of Ways and Means to an inquiry into the [MAY, 1796. business, because, as the nominal establishment was decreased from 6,000 to 3,000 men, they had hoped there would have been some decrease of expense also. They received for answer, that rations could not be contracted at Detroit for less than 30 cents each; but though this, by the concould not suppose they would cost the same at the tract, was the price of rations at that post, they other posts. It also appeared, from the information received from the Secretary of the Treasury, that the contract which had been made, was upon these terms-to furnish rations either at Detroit at 30 cents, or at Pittsburg at 11 cents, the place of delivery being at the option of Government. It would be seen that there was a difference betwixt those two prices of 19 cents; and he would ask whether any gentleman in that House believed that it would cost 19 cents per ration to transport them from Pittsburg to Detroit? He did not think that transportation would, on an average, cost 9 cents. The distance by land was not 200 miles; and water carriage would reduce it to 20. It was his opinion, therefore, that they ought not to make this appropriation. It was true, there was an increase in the price of provisions in the Western country, but it was not less true that the rations must be delivered at the prices contracted for. If the gentlemen on the committee thought with him, they would agree to fill the blank with two-thirds of the sum proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina. And this was calculating the whole as delivered at Detroit, though it was well known many of them would be delivered much nearer. He believed the expense of transportation to Detroit would be less than to most of the posts now occupied by the Army between the Ohio and the Lakes. Yet, under the idea of their being delivered at the posts now occupied by the Army, the rations had been estimated at 15 cents; but now they were told they will be charged 30 cents. The information he had given was correct, and, therefore, he should move to fill the blank relative to the subsistence of the officers, with 45,606 in the place of $68,480. Whilst he was up, he would mention another reason. It would apply, also, to the rations of non-commissioned officers and soldiers, one-third part of the estimated amount of which will be proper to be deducted, if his motion was carried. He should not have been anxious about this matter, but for one thing. He would remind the Committee of a letter which had been written by the Secretary of the Treasury to the Committee of Ways and Means, in which it will appear that although they had made specific appropriations for each head of expense relative to the Military Establishment, yet, those appropriations had been considered as a general grant for that department. [Mr. G. read the letter alluded to.] The consequence of this was, he said, that if more was granted for any particular purpose than was necessary, the surplus might be expended for any other item in the Military Establishment; therefore, when $70,000 were voted for the Indian de |