FEBRUARY, 1796.] Militia Pensions-Arrearages of Army Pay. This motion occasioned a long, desultory conversation; in the course of which it was said that evidence had been laid before the committee (but which had not been admitted) that those two towns contained more than thirty persons entitled to vote. It was said, that if this was the case, the election ought to be set aside. The reading of a great number of papers was called for. Among these were the certificates of the town clerks of Kingston and Hancock, stating the number of freemen in those towns, amounting to upwards of thirty. These certificates, it was said, were sufficient and legal evidence. It was observed by Mr. J. SMITH, that the first question to be determined appeared to him to be this: How far the omission of an officer to notify the citizens of one or more districts, ought to influence in vitiating an election. Mr. TRACY withdrew his motion for re-commitment, and moved that the report be postponed; this was agreed to, and Monday assigned. MILITIA PENSIONS. BENJAMIN STROTHER. [H. OF R. A report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Lieutenant Benjamin Strother was taken into consideration. This report refers the settlement of the claim of the petitioner to the accounting officers of the Treasury. It appeared that the petitioner had marched a number of troops to the Army on a route on which there was no contractor, in consequence of which Mr. Strother had incurred expenses for the supply of the troops under his command. The vouchers for the charges had been destroyed by a fire which burnt the hut of the petitioner; all the evidence that he could now offer in support of his account was his oath. The report is founded on an opinion of the committee that no account ought to be allowed on the oath of any person. The report occasioned some conversation, but was finally accepted, and a bill ordered pursuant thereto. ARREARAGES OF ARMY PAY. The House then went into Committee of the A report of the Committee of Claims on the Whole on a report of the Committee of Claims, petition of John Griffin was taken up in Commit- to whom had been referred a resolution respecting tee of the Whole. This report contains a resolu-a list of arrearages of pay or other emoluments, tion for placing on the pension list such non-commissioned officers, musicians, privates, and volunteers of the Militia, as may be wounded or disabled when in actual service, called out by any law of the United States. Mr. TRACY stated the reasons which had induced the committee to report this resolution. They were, among others, the uncertainty of the existing law, and the justice, policy, and expediency of the measure. The report was agreed to and reported to the House. The House adopted the same, and the Committee of Claims was directed to bring in a bill accordingly. - FRIDAY, February 5. Mr. WILLIAM SMITH reported a bill regulating the grants of lands appropriated for military services, and for the Society of United Brethren, incorporated for the purpose of propagating the Gospel among the Indians. This was twice read, and committed. Mr. S. SMITH called up a resolution which he had laid on the table some time ago, and moved that it should be referred to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures. The purport of the resolution is, that that committee be instructed to inquire and report whether any, and, if any, what, alterations may be proper to be made in the laws of the United States relative to commerce and navigation. The resolution was referred, pursuant to the motion. Mr. MADISON. after some general remarks on the subject, offered a resolution, the purport of which is to authorize the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to cause a survey of the main post road from Maine to Georgia-the expense to be defrayed out of the surplus revenue of the Post Office. Laid on the table. 4th CoN.-11 which may appear by the books of the Treasury to be due to the officers and soldiers of the late Army of the United States for services performed during the late war. The report states various reasons for not instituting the inquiry proposed by the resolution. Mr. GILES said, he supposed a book had been kept in the proper Department, in which a general view of the accounts of all persons employed by the public had been stated, but, to his astonishment, he found that no such book was in existence. A strong reason why such a book should have been kept might be drawn from the statement of the Accountant of the War Department, who says that persons had been twice paid, and that instances of this kind had come to his knowledge. The committee say that the subject cannot be gone into without a repeal of the limitation acts. He acknowledged this, and he therefore supposed those acts should be partially repealed; for in many respects they appeared to him to operate unjustly. From the report, it appeared highly probable that there were arrearages due to many persons; this might be inferred from the deranged state of the business. If anything was due, justice demands that it should be paid. But, from what was disclosed, he was aware that it would be impossible to do anything the present session. He should, however, reflect on the subject, and prepare something in lieu of the resolution he had offered. There are, said he, about an hundred clerks in the Treasury Department; he supposed some of them might not be very busily employed at the present time, and he thought they might be advantageously engaged in digesting these accounts, and bringing forward the different balances. Mr. WILLIAMS was in favor of agreeing to the report. He recited some facts to show that the business would probably result in the United States being called upon to pay a great number of accounts, which no principle of justice obliged them to discharge. Mr. FINDLEY said, if the business was practicable, he should think nothing of the limitation acts; they might easily be set aside. But he was convinced, at this time of day, the statement wished for could be partially executed. Mr. BALDWIN stated a variety of insuperable difficulties which would present themselves in prosecuting the investigation proposed. Mr. CLAIBORNE spoke in favor of the investigation. He hoped that, because some culprits had imposed on the public, and been twice paid, that Government would not refuse to pay a just debt. He had rather pay ten times the sums than refuse justice to a man who had a claim on the country for actual services. He had always opposed limitation acts as unjust in the extreme; they had operated most injuriously. He felt peculiarly concerned on this occasion, and he hoped the inquiry would be made. There is a sufficient number of persons in the public service, at high salaries, to undertake the business, and he hoped it would not be lost sight of. Mr. DEARBORN said he had not supposed that the books were in the situation exhibited in the report. He was not, however, prepared to vote in favor of the report; he was rather of opinion that something might be done. Mr. TRACY said that the suspension of the limitation act was not the question before the Committee of Claims, but simply this: the expediency of making a list of the persons who may appear to have balances due to them. What purpose could such a list answer, but to afford an endless scope of speculation? The consequence would be, forging of powers of attorney without number, by which means thousands of persons would gain twenty dollars for what did not cost them half a dollar. [FEBRUARY, 1796. would be made; he did not conceive it would re- Mr. DAYTON remarked, that it appeared to him to be very uncandid on the part of the gentlemen to attack a member on account of a resolution he had brought forward, when that member had himself withdrawn his support from it; he conceived that such conduct was indelicate and improper. Mr. HARPER here rose, and observed, that if he had said anything which implied the slightest imputation on the motives of the gentleman from Virginia in bringing forward the resolution, he had been misunderstood-he meant no such thing. If his remarks were susceptible of such a construction, he asked the gentleman's pardon. Mr. DAYTON replied that the remarks of the gentleman from South Carolina had struck his mind in the manner he had stated. He did con time of the House in discussing a resolution which was not supported by the original mover. While he was up, Mr. DAYTON said that he would just observe that he had the fullest confidence in the purity of the motives which had influenced the gentleman from Virginia; he had done what was strictly within the line of his duty. Adverting to the report, he observed, that though he did not object to it in all its parts, he was clearly of opinion that it was not well founded in stating that it was impossible to form the list mentioned. He thought such a list could easily be made, as the vouchers were in existence to establish the claims. On this account, no such book as had been men-ceive that it was entirely improper to take up the tioned had been kept, and he rejoiced that this was the case. All the evils attendant on the publication of the list contemplated would have resulted from such a book; for all the care and secrecy that could have been used would not have prevented such a list from having been made. Adverting to the mighty mass of public papers that must be examined in the investigation proposed, he said that ten years would not be sufficient to complete the business. He then recapitulated the uncertainty, perplexity, and eventual injustice that would attend the work. A large box of papers had lately been found, which, on examination, proved to be settlements of accounts, the parties to which, he had no doubt, had entirely forgotten that any such documents were in existence. Mr. GILES differed entirely from Mr. TRACY as to the effect which would result from framing the list referred to; he thought it would prevent speculation. Only persons interested would apply for information, and from such the information was improperly withheld. This uncertainty led persons to dispose of their claims below their value. He hoped the book he had first mentioned Mr. TRACY said that the committee had not said that it was impossible to make the list ; such an intimation is contained in the Accountant's statement, but is not in the committee's report. Mr. HARPER offered a few more remarks on what had fallen from the SPEAKER, in which he questioned the propriety of a member's being reflected on for offering such observations as he had offered on the report of the Committee of Claims. The question being called for, the report of the Committee of Claims was agreed to. CASE OF SILAS CLARK. The report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Silas Clark was taken into consideration by the Committee of the Whole. The report is against the prayer of the petition, which was for full half pay. The petitioner was a captain in the Massachusetts line, had returned his commutation, but was not allowed any interest on the certificates returned, so that he never derived any advantage from them. He is an invalid from wounds and disabilities incurred in the public service during the late war; his pension is only one-third of a captain's pay. Mr. NICHOLAS proposed that a general provision should be made. By a calculation which Mr. NICHOLAS offered, he said the petitioner had, from some cause or other, made a bad bargain in consenting to give up his commutation in lieu of a pension of one-third of his full pay. He conceives that the claim was founded in justice. and supposed the case was not a solitary one. Mr. HEISTER said that, according to his calculation, the bargain was in favor of the petitioner; the interest of his half-pay did not amount to so much per annum as his pension. The pension is $160 a year, the interest on the commutation is only $144. Mr. TRACY went into an extensive consideration of the subjects of commutation, half-pay, and pensions. The petitioner had received the pension from the beginning, and was therefore not entitled to interest. [H. OF R. the mechanic, the merchant-all suffered by the depreciation of the paper money. It was infinitely to be regretted that the officers and soldiers who carried us triumphantly through the glorious contest should not be paid every shilling due to them for their personal services; but it is also to be regretted that the farmer, the mechanic, and every other description of persons, who surrendered up their property to the call of the public did not receive an equivalent: they all made sacrifices, and were all victims to their patriotism in a greater or lesser degree. Can any man seriously contemplate a reimbursement of these losses, or compensation for these sacrifices? The attempt is impracticable, however desirable; it is entirely beyond the abilities of this country. Mr.S.SMITH. in reply to Mr.SEDGWICK, said, there was a wide difference, in his opinion, between personal services and those which had been mentioned. While the soldier was fighting the battles of his country for a pittance, and suffering all the evils incident in his destitute and hazardous situation, his merit was infinitely superior to that of the farmer who sold his corn or his ox for paper money, or that of the merchant or mechanic who took the paper for the purpose of speculation. Mr. HILLHOUSE said, that he thought it very extraordinary that the gentleman from Maryland should bring forward a charge of speculation against the persons who took paper money: all classes of persons took it voluntarily for a long time. The charge involved all the funds of the Revolution; for, have been lost. But this was not all. Did not the States make tender laws to compel the people to take the paper, and were not thousands ruined by it-thousands of as good friends to the Revolution as any description of persons whatever? He saw no good purpose to be answered by such comparisons. Mr. S. SMITH supported the claim of the peti-unless they had given it a currency, the cause would tioner. He recited some circumstances of the battle of Monmouth, in which this petitioner was wounded, and in which Captain Clark had borne a conspicuous part. He expatiated on the merits of the officers of the late Army. Adverting to commutation, he recited the circumstances under which it was given. Captain Clark had exchanged it for a pension, but, in doing this, he had, through ignorance, made a bad bargain; this is as demonstrable as figures can make it. Now, the question is, whether the Government shall take an advantage of this contract? He could not believe that it would; when fully informed of the circumstances, this Government will always allow and pay a just claim. Mr. SMITH said the petitioner was entitled to his half-pay for serving through the war, and to his pension for his wounds and disabilities; and there was a third demand which he was entitled to, and that was for interest on his pension during the time he did not re-engagements as referring to two different classes ceive it. Mr. NICHOLAS read a resolution which he would. offer, if in order, in lieu of the report of the committee. The purport of this was to make a general provision. It was remarked that the report of the committee ought to be first disposed of. Mr. SEDGWICK hoped the report of the committee would be accepted. He adverted to the frequent allusions to personal services, and said that the distinction which was made was not, in his opinion, either candid or just. Mr. S. asked what class or description of persons can be named who did not suffer by the events of the late war. The farmer, Mr. J. SMITH said, he conceived that the two gentlemen who had lately spoken [Mr. S. SMITH and Mr. NICHOLAS] did not understand the subject. These gentlemen had blended two things which ought to be kept separate and distinct, viz: the engagement on the part of Congress to give half-pay to the officers who should serve to the end of the war, which was afterwards, by agreement, commuted for five years' whole-pay, and the engagement to give a pension to such officers as should have the misfortune to be wounded or otherwise disabled in the service Mt. S. considered these of men, viz: able and sound men, and invalids. Those of the former description who should continue in the service to the end of the war were promised half-pay for life; those who were disabled in the service were allowed to retire upon a pension. No man was obliged, against his will, to be placed on the pension establishment; and the fact was, that numbers of officers who were wounded, either from patriotic motives, or other views, chose to be considered as sound and able men, and received the emoluments of such full pay and the commutation. They could not surely complain that they, though disabled, were still H. OF R.] men. to-morrow, as he wished then to propose an amendment. Agreed to. The report on the petition of Silas Clark was taken up again in Committee of the Whole, and a resolution adopted that the petitioner have leave to withdraw his petition. COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS. allowed the emoluments of able-bodied and sound But they cannot be, at the same time, of both descriptions-both able and disabled. If the journals or acts of the Government were examined, Mr. S. was confident that this would be found to be the sense of the Government. If an officer had the misfortune to be wounded in the service, he might retire, and receive the reward promised to the disabled. If he chose to continue in the service as an able man, and the public were pleased to permit him to do so, and to accept of his services as such, he was at liberty to continue, and receive the emoluments of the able officer who served through the war. Mr. S. threw these ideas Mr. GILES moved that the word "annually" be out for the consideration of gentlemen, and should expunged from the bill. He thought the present be obliged to those who would set him right, if he mode of compensating the members of the Legiswas wrong. He conceived that it was not the lature a good one, and could not conceive why an intention of gentlemen to take the question imme-alteration should be made. Such a mode of paydiately, for the usual hour of adjournment had ment as was now proposed ought to be sanctioned arrived: he moved that the Committee rise and only upon the maturest deliberation. report progress. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill for allowing a compensation to the members of both Houses, which proposes an annual salary of one thousand dollars to each member, instead of six dollars per day. Mr. GOODHUE explained the reasons which The Committee accordingly rose, reported pro-induced the Committee to propose an annual gress, and had leave to sit again. MONDAY, February 8. Mr. TRACY, from the Committee of Claims, presented a bill for the relief of certain officers and soldiers who have been wounded or disabled in the actual service of the United States; which was read twice and committed. Mr. HENDERSON Moved a resolution in nearly the following words: "Resolved, That the Committee of Revisal and Unfinished Business be instructed to inquire into the number of clerks that are now employed in the Department of the Treasury, the Department of State, and the War Department, and that they inquire into the number of clerks that, in their opinion, may be necessary for the services annexed to those Departments and offices, and that they make report thereon." The resolution was agreed to. Mr. SHERBURNE took notice of the very great expense attending the present mode of payment of the interest on the Domestic Debt, and, with a view to remedy the evil, moved― "That the Committee of Ways and Means do inquire whether any and what alterations and amendments are necessary in the mode of paying the interest of the National Debt." Mr. MURRAY moved "that a committee be appointed to inquire whether any, and what, alterations are necessary in the offices of the Government of the United States." Ordered to lie on the table. THE PUBLIC DEBT. Mr. W. SMITH moved for the order of the day for taking into consideration the bill for further extending the time for receiving on Loan the National Debt of the United States. The House accordingly formed itself into a Committee of the Whole, read the bill, and agreed to it without amendment. The House being again resumed, Mr. SWIFT requested the bill might lie over till instead of a daily payment to members, which was, that members might be induced to greater despatch in business, and to do away an idea which had gone abroad amongst many people, that, being paid by the day, the members of that House protracted their session to an unreasonable length. Mr. GILES thought there ought to be no pecuniary inducement to members to push forward business in too rapid a manner, or to shorten their this effect, and business, in consequence, would sessions. An annual salary would doubtless have most certainly be neglected. It would be an evil of the greatest importance; it would be a constant temptation to members to neglect their duty; it would tend to embarrass all their deliberations. Indeed, it was a perfectly new mode of requiting Representatives, and would be supposed to be introduced for the purpose of advancing their payan idea which he did not wish to prevail, as he thought the present allowance sufficient. He therefore hoped the principle would not be agreed to. Mr. SWANWICK was against the bill, and said, that to pay members in the way proposed would be to offer them a bounty to neglect the business of the Legislature. Mr. HILLHOUSE was in favor of the bill. He said, that the Constitution had provided that Congress should meet once a year, and that more time was spent during their sitting than was taken up by the Circuits of the Judges. Yet the Judges had a salary allowed them, and it was not found to have any bad effect. Complaints are now made out of doors that their sessions are protracted for the sake of the daily allowance paid to them. Persons who said this, said he, do not know that we are all the time deeply engaged in business. which is much lengthened by clashing interests of different States. A yearly salary would do away this idea, without making any real difference in the amount paid by the Treasury for their services. If he thought the mode of payment would cause members to neglect their duty, as has been observed, he too would be against the adoption of it; but surely it cannot be supposed that members FEBRUARY, 1796.] Compensation to Members. would not sit as long as business should require them. He observed, they had now been in session two months, and but very little important business had been done. He thought the mode proposed would tend to remedy this evil: it was an experiment at least worth trying. Mr. FINDLEY did not object to the bill merely as a novelty, but because it offered no advantage. Many persons, no doubt, would think one thousand dollars a year too much; but he believed it best for members to do their duty, without regarding the misapprehensions and prejudices of they know not whom. He did not think the pay of members influenced their sittings. The greatest difficulty, towards the close of the session, was to keep members together. If, indeed, members would attend better at the beginning of a session, and take up less time in speaking, sessions might be shorter; but there must, however, be full liberty given to every member to express his sentiments in his own way. No law can regulate people's conceptions. He thought it best that the members should be paid by the day. He should never boast of passing laws in a short time, but of passing good laws. Mr. NICHOLAS was in favor of the present mode of compensating members, as the period of their session was uncertain, and wherever salaries were paid, they were for certain business. Give members one thousand dollars, and he did not doubt but some of them would wish to return home sooner than if they had been paid in proportion to the time spert in business. Water, though insensibly, wears away stones; and such an influence, he feared, would have a tendency to undermine the integrity of members. It was better to be slow than too hasty in business. He hoped this bill would not pass as an experiment, for the effect must be corruption; and when once this enemy of all Governments is suffered to take root, it is difficult to eradicate it. Indeed, this bill would be supposed by many as a cover to advance the pay of members. If there were any such view, he wished members to propose the measure openly. He thought the present pay too much, and if the people thought it influenced the length of their sittings, they were of the same opinion. Mr. WILLIAMS was against the bill, though he believed it to be brought in by the Committee from the best of motives. It was their opinion it would shorten the sessions, and, if carried into effect, it might do so. If our wages were lowered, the measure would shorten our sessions. Every penny beyond expenses is too much: a medium salary was desirable. If the pay of members was increased, officers of Government will do the same. At present, it was true, all the necessaries of life were at a high price; but when the war in Europe ceases, the case will be different. Whenever we adjourn our sessions, (said he,) much business is necessarily left unfinished; and if members were paid by the year instead of by the day, all those whose business was not completed would be ready to say that members were hastened away to enjoy their salary at home. Mr. SEDGWICK did not think the business before the House important. He was inclined, however, [H. of R. to favor the bill, not that he would grant a larger amount in that way than the amount of the present allowance per day. The argument of novelty, he said, would not apply: we are in the business of experiment. He would observe a fact well known, that every member in the House was deprived of the opportunity of pursuing his occupations at home, and of the emoluments arising therefrom, by his attendance to public business. He did not believe a yearly allowance would shorten the sessions, but it would remove the charge brought against members of protracting the sessions for the sake of their pay. Whether it is necessary to increase or diminish the present pay is not the question. Mr. LIVINGSTON expected stronger motives for the bill than he had heard. It is acknowledged a perfect novelty. This, though by no means decisive, is an objection against the measure, and there is nothing else to recommend it. It has, indeed, been said, it will shorten our sessions; but would this be a benefit? If to continue in session be an evil, why are we here? If it could have been proved that expense would have been saved by the measure, that would have been a real advantage; but this has not been hinted at. It has, indeed, been said, it will remove from our constituents a suspicion that we are living here too long. It has been said, that an idea has gone abroad that we receive six dollars a day through the year. Few, he believed, were so ill informed; but this bill, if passed, will cause much more discontent than the present pay occasions. Deliberation in a Legislative body is necessary. The dearest interests of the people, he said, were committed to their charge, and he trusted they would watch over them, and never suffer them to be injured; and then, it was his opinion their constituents would not think much of their pay. Mr. BALDWIN said, that it was a disagreeable business to be employed in discussing the subject of paying themselves for their services: it would be a desirable thing to supersede the necessity of doing so. The Committee doubtless thought one thousand per annum would be an improvement upon the present mode of paying members, but he could not think so. He thought it best that the allowance should be paid in the old way. Mr. GILBERT was willing to try the experiment of the bill proposed. He did not believe that either the present daily allowance lengthened, or that an annual salary would shorten, the sessions. He thought to say the contrary was a base insinuation. Mr. BOURNE never heard it was the wish of their constituents that their payment should be annual instead of per day. He had heard it complained that their pay was too high; but now, since the price of living is so much advanced, he believed the people were satisfied. He saw no advantages from the proposed change. It cannot be thought that the pay is an inducement to members to prolong their sessions: he had not heard such a complaint. He was in favor of striking out the word "annually," and for recommitting the bill. Mr. MADISON observed, that the present bill pro |