FEBRUARY, 1796.] Loan to the City of Washington. [H. or R. time to amend them. He, therefore, saw no ground for the Committee to rise on that head. Mr. BRENT was very desirous that a final decision should be come to on the subject; as whilst it was yet pending, the property in the Federal City was subject to much speculation, the minds of persons concerned were kept in an unsettled situation, and the season was advancing in which the Commissioners wished to take steps to forward the undertaking. He answered the objections which had been made against the form of the bill, and justified the conduct of the committee. He remarked upon what had been said with respect to the security offered for the meditated loan. He acknowledged that the credit of the United States was good for any amount, and said that the lots were intended as a security to the United States, and not to the persons who subscribed money to the intended loan. pleting the buildings. And provided the property be not equal to the payment of the money borrowed, the United States guarantee the making good the deficiency. If this clause were struck out, the lenders of money would have no further security, if the buildings were not sufficient to pay. So that, after passing this act, the business would remain in the same state it was in before the House took it up. It has been said, that it would be derogatory to the dignity of the United States to offer these lots as a security, in addition to their own credit; but, that a person should become disreputable by offering too ample a security, was a novel doctrine to him; and that gentleman's ideas of dignity and his, were so opposite, as not likely to meet. It has been said, that it will be necessary to open a loan for 600,000 dollars on the public account, and he could not see the dishonor of opening a loan for this object more than for that. The form of the act was Mr. S. SMITH understood that the Commisnecessary to secure the repayment of money re- sioners of the Federal City were to make the ceived by the Commissioners, and it was neces- loan in their own name; but in this bill the PRESsary that the lots should be conveyed to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES guarantees the IDENT as a guarantee for the money borrowed. He was, therefore, for the bill remaining in its present form. Mr. SWIFT thought the faith of the United States sufficient for money lenders, and expressed his disapprobation of the bill in other respects. Mr. HILLHOUSE said, if it would be in order, he should wish to move that the Committee rise, and that the bill be recommitted in order to have it moulded into a somewhat different form. Mr. DAYTON wished, as there was matter perfectly new to him introduced into this bill, that the Committee would rise, that the bill might be recommitted, and formed agreeably to the resolution of that House authorizing it to be brought in. Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH had the greatest respect for the opinion of the last speaker; but could not see the difference stated by him to exist between this bill and the resolution authorizing the committee to bring it in. This he endeavored to show at considerable length, and observed, that the committee did not conceive themselves confined to the words, but to the spirit of the resolu tion. Mr. NICHOLAS justified the form of the bill, as being agreeable to the resolution of the House, and said if the fourth section was struck out, the law would be destroyed altogether. Mr. SEDGWICK wished the bill to take a different form.. Mr. MADISON did not see any necessity for the Committee to rise. He thought the bill conformable to the resolution of the House, and sufficiently simple in itself. Mr. SWIFT was for having the bill recommitted. He wished to know how far a committee had the power to deviate from a resolution instructing them to bring in a bill. He said there were new principles introduced into this bill which he could not agree to. Mr. GALLATIN said there was no necessity for recommitting the bill. If any provisions of the bill required amendment, the present was the loan, which, he thought, would interfere with the interests of the United States. He should, there-fore, vote for a recommitment. The fourth clause of the bill, he thought useless, and objected to the making of a loan with a mortgage of lots. But though he made these objections to the bill, he was in favor of furnishing money to complete the works in this city. Mr. HARPER wished to suggest some ideas by which the question might be immediately taken. The first plan was, that the Commissioners of the Federal City mortgage the property, and that the United States should give security; another plan was, that the property should be vested in the United States, and assigned to the PRESIDENT. He thought the latter plan the best, but it would be extremely proper that the sense of the Committee should be expressed. If the motion, then, for the Committee to rise could be withdrawn he would move to strike out certain words, to introduce the proposed amendment. Mr. GILES wished the subject to go before the committee again; but, he said it was necessary they should have instructions upon which to act, as they could not be guided by a debate of that House only. Several members calling for a rising of the Committee, it rose, and asked leave to sit again. TUESDAY, February 23. The Committee of Ways and Means gave in their report on the revenue laws, which was twice read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday. LOAN FOR THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. The House having resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill for authorizing a loan for the use of the City of Washington. Mr. WILLIAMS proposed an amendment, which, after a few observations from Mr. MURRAY and Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH, was withdrawn. H. OF R.] Loan to the City of Washington. Mr. VARNUM said he understood a motion had been yesterday made to strike out the fourth clause of the bill; but the gentleman who had made the motion not appearing in his place, he renewed the motion to strike out that clause. [FEBRUARY, 1796. be called upon for the money. He wished, therefore, the Committee to rise, and recommit the bill. Mr. W. LYMAN was against the Committee rising. He wished the sense of the House to be taken, whether it was in favor of the United States guaranteeing the loan, or not. He did not see anything material in the bill which was not in the resolution of the House, except what re Mr. MURRAY thought that clause essential. For though he believed the lots worth considerably more than the money proposed to be borrowed, yet more implicit confidence would be placed on the security, and it would be a means of acceler-lated to public squares. ating the business, if the sanction of the guarantee of the United States was added to it. Mr. VARNUM objected to the United States guaranteeing this loan. He did not know with any certainty what would be the expense of the proposed buildings, or the extent of them. To guarantee this loan, was to guarantee what they knew not; and if they guaranteed it, he believed they would have the money to pay. He was of opinion the whole of the buildings necessary for the use of Government might be built for a less sum than was asked to finish what was already begun. Why should the United States guarantee this loan? Because it would be for the interest of certain individuals. It would be the interest of the United States to sell the whole of the lots, and then guarantee a loan. At any rate, before the United States went into the business, they ought to know to what extent they pledged themselves. Mr. CRABB said the fourth section was a necessary part of the bill, which was to complete a great national object. He could not see, therefore, why it should be objected to. If, indeed, gentlemen wished to defeat the whole business, it would be well for them to declare their intentions at once. It has been said, if the United States make the guarantee, there is no security, but they may have to pay the money. There was all the security that could be expected-a vestment of the lots. It was laudable to attend to economy in public affairs; but there would be no economy in refusing to make the guarantee required, but the reverse; as, in that case, the property would not sell for one-third of its value; and if the Government was to be removed there at the time proposed, the money for completing the necessary buildings, would have to be drawn from the Treasury. He expatiated at considerable length on the merits of the bill, and insisted upon its conformity to the resolution empowering the committee to bring it in. Mr. HILLHOUSE was in some degree of the same opinion with the member last up. But he thought it impossible to draw a bill which should perfectly correspond with the resolution of the House so frequently referred to. It had been said yesterday that it was not possible to frame a bill more conformable to the resolution than the one now under discussion. To show that this was possible, he had drawn up a clause which would make the bill in perfect unison with the resolution. [He read the clause.] The bill, so altered, would not tie up the lots so that they cannot be sold to raise the money. And if this clause was adopted, the United States would not Mr. MURRAY said, to strike out the fourth section of the bill would be to do violence to the property in the Federal City. The first clause transfers the property into the hands of the PRESIDENT, and now objections are raised against the clause necessary to complete the business. If gentlemen mean to destroy the bill altogether, it should be done in a way not to injure the property of individuals. Mr. RUTHERFORD spoke in favor of the bill. Mr. SWANWICK was in favor of the Committee's rising for the purpose of recommitting the bill. He objected to the bill generally upon the same ground as yesterday, with respect to joining the securities of the lots, and the faith of the United States together. He asked how the passing of this bill could give value to the buildings of the Federal City? Is it not already enacted that Congress shall sit there in the year 1801? The value of the lots was to be increased only by selling them to a number of persons. The city must owe its prosperity to its peculiar advantages as a commercial spot, and not from its being the Seat of Government. It was, therefore, the interest of the United States to sell the lots and induce people to settle there. The higher price the lots bore, the greater would be the obstacles to settlement. If it was the intention of the United States to grant money for the completion of the building, let the House say so. When it was first proposed to remove the Government to the Federal City, it was said that it would be the interest of persons to give lots to encourage the Government to come there. The security now asked for was never contemplated. He had, however, no objection to the United States granting money, but he was against the making of two loans, one on the credit of the United States, and another on that of the United States and certain lots. Mr. DAYTON did not altogether like the present motion, and he was against the form of the bill. He wished it to be determined, whether the United States were only to become eventually guarantees for the money borrowed, and whether on the sale of any lot it should be exonerated from the loan. The property he should wish to be placed in the hands of the Commissioners, or in the PRESIDENT, to make sale of it. Mr. GALLATIN was against the Committee rising, and against the bill being recommitted, until principles be agreed upon on which they mean the bill to be recommitted. Two or three plans, directly contrary to each other, are produced, yet all are in favor of a recommitment. It was necessary first to establish the principle. A gentle FEBRUARY, 1796.] Loan to the City of Washington. man had said he had drawn up a clause, which would completely carry the resolution of the House into effect, but he thought the bill before the House more conformable to that resolution than the clause proposed, which contains a different principle. He wished, therefore, that the gentleman would withdraw his motion, for the purpose of settling the principle. Mr. HILLHOUSE had no objection to withdraw his motion. Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH thought it would be economical in the United States to guarantee the Loan. He thought the substitute offered for a clause of the bill more defective than the one it was meant to supply. He said the United States would not be actually responsible for any part of the money borrowed; and the committee had thought they could not do better than place the property under the direction of the PRESIDENT; but if it was thought too heavy a burden to be laid upon him, the business might be placed in the hands of the Secretary of State or Secretary of the Treasury. [H. OF R. the property was not worth the money, the passing of this bill will not lessen, but increase its value. He said, the faith of the United States was already pledged, and they were bound to pass the present bill. Mr. MURRAY thought it would save time, if the motion for striking out the fourth section was withdrawn, for the purpose of considering the first and second sections. Mr. VARNUM Consented to this, but again cautioned the House against guaranteeing what they did not know the extent of. He believed the property would not be equal to the money to be borrowed; and although the PRESIDENT considered the property as of that value, yet it became them, as a branch of the Legislature, to be convinced of it also. If it be true that there is money enough in the hands of the Commissioners to complete the buildings, there is no occasion for this Loan. Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH said, the committee who brought in the bill thought, as the United States were made responsible, they ought to have a seMr. S. SMITH said, the House was willing to curity under their immediate control. If this had give its responsibility; the way of doing it, was not been the case, he should have been against the the matter contended for. If the fourth clause bill. He went into an explanation of the nature had been agreed upon to be struck out, he should of the Federal City property, and showed that have introduced another in its place. If the bill gentlemen were mistaken when they said that the remained in its present state, he said, the United United States had already the property in their States cannot sell the lots; the people, therefore, hands; they had no control over it, and could not who go there, must purchase of speculators, who prevent the Commissioners from alienating it, but may ask what price they please. It has been said, if this bill pass, they will have that power, and to strike out the fourth section would be to destroy security for the Loan proposed to be negotiated. the bill; if so, he would not vote for it. If the Mr. DAYTON Conceived the object of reconsiderfourth section were struck out, he would returning the first and second clause was to reconcile two to the second, and make some alteration in it, so as to pledge the faith of the United States. It was ridiculous, he said, to think of mortgaging lots for the money to be borrowed; there was no occasion for a counter-security to the faith of the United States. The bill, in its present form, was calculated to advance the price of the lots for the interest of speculators. He would have the faith of the United States pledged for the proposed Loan, and the lots consigned to them as a security. He saw no occasion for the first section of the bill, as he believed the property already vested in the United States, and that the Commissioners cannot Mr. DAYTON proposed an amendment to the convey any lots without the consent of the PRE-second section, which went to the preventing of SIDENT at least, that they ought not to do it. He lots being mortgaged, and to enable the PRESIDENT wished the Loan to be made by the Commission- to sell them. ers, with the guarantee of the United States. Mr. CRABB replied to the arguments of the last speaker, and noticed what had fallen from Mr. SWANWICK on the subject of tacking the faith of the United States and the lots together. He said that gentleman knew it to be the practice of bankers to require endorsers to the notes of men of the first property, and the guarantee of the United States was on the same principle. There would be no necessity for the guarantee of the United States, if the property was as well known in Europe as it is known here. He said, the House had the assurance of the PRESIDENT, that if the property was duly attended to, it would be worth all the money borrowed. But suppose 4th CON.-13 opposite principles introduced; this, he said, might be done by moving to strike out a part of the first, or a part of the second clause; he thought the latter would be the best. Mr. HILLHOUSE wished to move to strike out the first section, in order to introduce another, which he read, for guaranteeing only a part, instead of the whole Loan. He thought the business should still remain in the hands of the Commissioners. Mr. GILES thought the plan proposed by the member from New Jersey best adapted to taking the sense of the House. Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH Would not oppose the motion, though he thought there was no necessity for it, as he believed the PRESIDENT would have the same power as the bill stood. Mr. BRENT said, it was the wish of the committee that the property might remain in the hands of the PRESIDENT, to be disposed of as he thought proper; but as different members seem to think the property will not be at sufficient liberty to be sold, by the bill as it stands, he should vote for the amendment. It had been said, by a member, that before he voted for the bill, he should wish for information respecting the extent of the intended Loan, &c. If that gentleman had attended to the documents laid before the House, he would have H. OF R.] Loan to the City of Washington. seen accounts of all the money received and ex pended, and how much was necessary to complete the business. He may, therefore, be easy on that subject. It had been said, if the lots be a sufficient surety for the Loan, why guarantee it? At present, he said, they were not sufficient. Mr. B. observed, that the bill before them would be considered as the touchstone to determine whether the Seat of Government will go to the banks of the Potomac, or not. Motives of policy and economy, and objections to increasing the Public Debt, will not apply in this case. The very act provides funds to guarantee the Loan; for though the property, until the proposed Loan be guaranteed, would sell for a mere trifle, when it is guaranteed it will sell for a great price. So great a difference would it make, that he believed property which will then sell for two millions of dollars, would not otherwise be worth one hundred thousand dollars. If, therefore, gentlemen are against the bill from economical views, they are mistaken; for, it was his opinion, the property would not only pay off the Loan, but eventually be a considerable fund towards the discharge of the Public Debt. It had been suggested that the United States were under no obligation to make this guarantee. He thought differently; he believed the credit of the United States materially concerned. The public have relied fully upon the countenance of Government in this business; many persons, indeed, have made great sacrifices to procure lots in this new city, and if, after holding out temptations to people, Government should not go there at the proposed time, all these persons will be ruined, and a stain will be laid upon the national character. He hoped, therefore, no objection would be made to carrying the bill into effect. [FEBRUARY, 1796. the law. It is said, that Government shall be at The Committee now rose, and asked leave to sit again. WEDNESDAY, February 24. ALEXANDER D. ORR, from Kentucky, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat. Mr. HILLHOUSE, of the committee to whom it was referred to bring in a new bill for regulating intercourse with the Indian tribes, and for preserving peace with the Indians, presented a bill; which was read a first and second time, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next. LOAN TO THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. Mr. SEDGWICK could not assent to the proposed The House having resolved itself into a Comamendment. He had no objection to the guaran-mittee of the Whole, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the tee, but he did not consider the United States as Chair, on the bill for authorizing a Loan for the under any obligations to provide accommodations use of the Federal Cityfor the Government in the Federal City. The friends of the act when it passed, every one who was present at the time must remember, disclaimed all intention of calling on Government for this purpose; he could not conceive, therefore, with the gentleman who spoke last, that the faith of the United States was any way pledged. Motives of accommodation would, however, influence him to vote in favor of the guarantee. But he was against the amendment; as, if the funds proved inadequate, every one would look to Government to make good the deficiency. He was willing to guarantee the loan of half a million. To pledge the United States for the whole of the deficiency, if ever so great, he was not willing. Mr. SWIFT observed, it had been said that the fate of the bill depended upon the fourth section; he thought not. He was ready to guarantee the Loan, but would have the money obtained on the lots, and the faith of the United States pledged only for any deficiency which might remain eventually. He wished to keep the United States as detached from the subject as possible, by letting it remain in the same channel which was intended by the original act. The Commissioners might then proceed as usual. If this plan was adopted, he would move not to strike out the words proposed to be struck out; as, when the principle was settled, he should wish the bill to be recom mitted. Mr. MURRAY thought the objection of the last Mr. HAVENS did not think the motion for strikspeaker might be done away with by an attentioning out certain words of great importance. He to the third section of the bill, which says the PRESIDENT shall sell the lots, to make good the Loan. He hoped the amendment would pass. Mr. GALLATIN said, an objection was made to the amendment, because it was a deviation from the original law. We are told, said he, of a sort of contract, and members are called upon to recollect the conditions. He should, however, follow saw no impropriety in borrowing money on lots; he did not think money lenders would be influenced in any considerable degree by the lots being in the security; but if it was the opinion of a majority of members, that this would be the better plan, he should not object to it. Mr. DAYTON said the words moved to be struck out were certainly of consequence, as they admit FEBRUARY, 1796.] Loan to the City of Washington. ted of two constructions. If the amendment took place, he said, the United States would not be pledged, as had been stated, to finish the buildings; all they would be pledged for would be to make good any deficiency which there might be before the sum guaranteed by the present bill and the amount of the sale of the lots. If, indeed, the lots produce more money than will pay off the Loan, then the surplus might be applied to the finishing of other buildings; but he did not consider the United States pledged by the present bill to a greater amount than the sum with which the blank in the bill would be filled up. Mr. SWIFT said, his wish was that the business should go on in the hands of the Commissioners, as heretofore. This bill, he said, changes the original principle of the plan, by placing the whole of the property in the hands of the United States, leaving it with them to complete the buildings. When once this is determined, he said, the United States might consider the Federal City as a child of their own; and the moment it is known that the Government has interfered in the matter, every expense attending it will be increased. This was a necessary consequence, and ought to be guarded against. Mr. WILLIAMS was in favor of the buildings remaining in the hands of the Commissioners. He could wish to move, in order to have an important principle decided upon by the committee, that the words "the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES" be expunged. Until this was decided upon, he said, they might go on from day to day, without making any progress in the business. [On being informed by the Chairman that his motion was not in order, Mr. W. proceeded to remark generally.] He said it was imprudent to go farther | than the original law intended. When business of this sort, he said, is taken up by public bodies, there is no end of the expense. It had been said, great economy had been used by the Commissioners; he did not think so. He called for the reading of a paper, which lay on the Clerk's table, stating the expense already incurred; which being read, he remarked, that for the single article of surveying alone, more than twenty-two thousand dollars had been paid. It had been computed, he he said, that 700,000 dollars would complete the contemplated buildings, but when the high price of materials and labor were considered, most gentlemen would think with him that it would require three times that sum. It was calculated, he said, the other day, that two hundred thousand dollars world complete the buildings for the reception of Congress. There were now lots sold to the amount of three hundred thousand dollars; but it is supposed there will be a failure in the payment of this sum; but it has not been stated why. Is it right, said he, for Government to interfere in this business, to advance the value of property purchased by individuals on speculation? When they legislated, he said, they should legislate with their eyes open. A gentleman had said, that members who opposed the bill would do well to throw off the cloak; he wished the cloak to be thrown off on all sides. But we are told, [H. OF R. that if we do not give energy to this business the public will not have assurance that the Government will be removed to the Federal City at the appointed time. There was no ground for this remark, as the original act stood unrepealed, and he hoped would remain so. He wished to keep that act in view, and not vary from it. He said the public buildings had been begun upon a wrong principle-upon a plan much too magnificent; they were more so than any palace in Europe: they would cost a million of dollars more than calculated. And, said he, everything must be in proportion: the officers who go into those palaces must have their salaries proportioned to the grandeur of their habitations. Mr. WILLIAMS supposed he should be told this land was a gift--but where is the gift? Was not every other lot reserved to the proprietors? and are not these lots now more valuable than the whole was when it was first laid out for a city? It had been resolved, he said, that the permanent Seat of Government should be in this city, and he was willing it should be so. He did not think with some members, that by keeping the lots in hand they would increase in value; he thought the contrary. He wished the House would agree to complete the public buildings alone; for, he believed, the instant the United States guaranteed a loan they would have it to pay, and he did not think it right to engage in any thing likely to increase the public debt. He thought the best plan would be to sell the whole of the lots whilst they will bring a high price-he should not object, however, to a reasonable guarantee, but would, by no means consent to the United States taking the business wholly into their own hands. Mr. DEARBORN said, there appeared a reluctance to give the House the documents relative to the public buildings. The committee, he said, should receive some information on the subject of the money due on account of lots sold, with respect to a part of it being doubtful. Mr. BRENT believed, if the gentleman examined the memorial of the Commissioners, he would find the papers alluded to. The Commissioners who made sale of the property, he said, were not now the Commissioners. The contracts they made were supposed to be good at that time. The first stipulated payment had been made, the second had been some time due, and was not paid. There was, therefore, reason to believe there would be some failures. It was one of the conditions of these contracts, that a certain number of houses should be built in a given time. Part of these houses have been erected; he believed there were nearly 300. There is no danger, therefore, he said, if the purchasers should not complete their contract, of there being any eventual loss; but, in the meantime, immediate resources are wanting to prosecute the buildings in hand. Mr. GILES wished this subject might be treated with candor. He hoped gentlemen who were opposed to the principle of the bill, would allow the committee to form as unobjectionable a bill as they were able. He thought it unfair to prevent a thing being brought into as perfect a state as |