Page images
PDF
EPUB

DEBATE ON THE ARMY BILL.

cember 31, 1792, they were $92,988.40; for the year 1793 they were $103,883.19; and during 1794 they had reached the unprecedented sum of $129,185.87.* This act expired by limitation on June 1, 1794, when a few changes were made. The postage on a single newspaper destined for any point in the State wherein it was is sued was to be only one cent, and, when the size of the mail and the methods of conveyance permitted, conveyance permitted, magazines and pamphlets were to be taken at a charge of one cent a sheet for the first 50 miles, and one and one half cents for any distance between 50 and 100 miles, and ten cents above 100 miles. It was provided also that carriers were to be employed in the large cities, who were to be paid at the rate of two cents for every letter delivered.†

[blocks in formation]

125

to St.

blame seemed to attach to Clair, who in his condition of health should never have been sent out on the unfortunate expedition. Congress was now called upon to consider a bill for the protection of the frontiers, one section of which provided for three additional regiments of infantry and a squadron of cavalry, to the total number of 3,040 men, thus raising the standing army of the United States to 5,168 men. A motion was made to strike out this provision, and in the debate which followed party feeling began to display itself quite freely. Those who opposed the Indian war claimed that a single regiment cost $100,000, two regiments $300,000; and if the proposed increase were made, the total cost of the army would be $1,250,000. They said that the Indian war was unjust, and even if it were not, it was unnecessary to employ 5,000 men to conquer 1,200 Indians, when Washington had beaten the English with an army which at one time did not number more than 10,000 effectives. At any rate, the Treasury could not, it was said, afford the drain, nor would the country stand for any more taxes. The opponents of the measure were reminded, however, that the army was to protect a long frontier, which required a large number of men; that the Indians were devastating the frontier settlements; and that this was sufficient justification for carrying on the war against them. When the motion to strike out this section came to a vote,

126

HAMILTON'S REPORT ON MANUFACTURES.

it was lost by 18 yeas to 34 nays, and ten days later the original bill was passed.* In the midst of this agitation St. Clair resigned, and the position of commander-in-chief of the army was offered to Anthony Wayne, who accepted.†

On December 5, 1791, Hamilton rendered his report on manufactures, "the strongest presentation of the case for protection which has been made by any American statesman."‡ In his address to Congress, January 8, 1790, Washington had recommended early provision for the defence of the country, "to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." || On January 15 this part of the address was referred by the House to the Secretary of the Treasury, with instructions to prepare a plan in accordance with the recommendations of the President. This resulted in the report above mentioned. Though the

*Annals of Congress, 2d Congress, 1st session, pp. 1343-1346; McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 69–71. Stillé, Wayne and the Pennsylvania Line, pp. 314-315.

Bishop says: "It well-nigh exhausted the arguments in defence of manufactures, and its principles and logic have formed a common resource for later reasoning on the same subject.”— History of Manufactures, vol. ii., p. 33.

Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., p. 65. § Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. i., pp. 7617.

The text will be found in American State Papers, Finance, vol. i., pp. 123-144. See also

President had said that the revenues were adequate for all necessities, Hamilton offered to recommend that the tariff be revised, or else that, in the interests of native manufactures, bounties be bestowed. The report was committed to the Committee of the Whole in January of 1792, but, much to Hamilton's mortification, went over without action. Basing his arguments upon the "general welfare " clause of the Constitution, Hamilton argued, under color of giving bounties to manufacturers, that Congress might take under its own management everything it deemed to be for the public welfare, provided only it were susceptible of the application of money. He said: "It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the national legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. Though he limited this general discretion to the application of money, and very vaguely indicated some restrictions, the tenor of his report was to show that the Federal government possessed plenary and almost unlimited powers of raising money. One of the cardinal features of his report was the recommendation that American industries be protected

*

[ocr errors]

by a system of bounties in prefer

MacDonald, Select Documents, pp. 98–112; Annals of Congress, 2d Congress, 1st session, pp. 9711034; Hamilton's Works, vol. iii., pp. 294-416. * Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 204.

DEBATE ON TARIFF REVISION.

ence to prohibitive duties. He recommended that all duties on imported cotton, as a raw material of manufacture, be repealed. He then enumerated a long list of industries which should be protected, thereby increasing his influence with those citizens. whose interests he so ably championed.*

But Hamilton's report served one practical purpose. Unexpected tidings of reverses had been received from the western country, and, as the increased expenses of continuing the Indian campaign would require additional means, Hamilton was requested to suggest the best method of raising the necessary money. Though warmly opposed, this proposition was passed by a vote of 31 to 27.† This resulted in Hamilton's report of March 16, 1792, wherein, instead of advocating a loan or the sale of the Bank stock possessed by the government, he recommended that duties on imports be increased. This report was referred to a committee, of which Fitzsimons was chairman, and on April 11 a bill embodying Hamilton's recommendations was reported. On the 17th this bill was taken under consideration by

Stanwood (Tariff Controversies, vol. i., pp. 77-104) discusses this report at length, as do Bishop, History of Manufactures, vol. ii., pp. 3443; Thompson, History of the Protective Tariff, pp. 77-83; Coman, Industrial History of the United States, pp. 144-146; O. L. Elliott, The Tariff Controversy, pp. 93-112.

Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. i., pp.

104-105.

For text, see American State Papers, Finance, vol. i., pp. 158-161.

127

the House, and was debated until the 21st, when it was passed by a vote of 37 to 20. The Senate made some minor amendments and, on May 2, 1792, after an agreement had been reached by the two Houses, the act was approved. The debate on this bill was not fully reported. After discussion, a motion was carried to increase the duty on hemp from 54 to $1 a hundredweight and to add 75 cents a hundredweight to the duty on cordage.

* *

Hamilton had advocated placing cotton on the free list. The duty was favored by all the Southern members, but opposed by those from the North. When the final question came up, Page, of Virginia, opposed its passage on the ground that it was not a bill to raise money for the protection of the frontiers. "If the bill were what its title says it is, I should be the last man in the House to vote against it. * It is not a bill for the protection of the frontiers, but for the encouragement of certain manufactures and of the fisheries, and for the increase of the sinking fund." Nevertheless, as the occasion had arisen to increase the tariff, the opportunity was grasped to adopt Hamilton's recommendations of protective duties; and the members from various sections, who thought their local interests not sufficiently protected, wanted to extend the system as much

* United States Statutes-at-Large, vol. i., pp. 259-263; Annals of Congress, 2d Congress, 1st session, pp. 1364-1370.

[blocks in formation]

as circumstances would allow.* Under this act the President was given authority to borrow from the Bank until such time as the new duties should be collected.† To offset the protective features of the bill, Congress reduced the excise on distilled spirits, so as to make it more acceptable to the inhabitants of western Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Complaints had been made that the excise contravened private rights by subjecting citizens to an odious search, by oppressing them with penalties, and by interfering with their business generally. In a report of March 5, 1792, Hamilton defended the act in detail and in principle, but recommended substantially the same alterations that Congress subsequently (Act May 8, 1792, c. 32) agreed upon. The old colonial bounty to fishermen was also restored.||

The need of a legal money standard had been realized during the days of the Confederation, and we have seen that several plans had been proposed, though none was ever perfected. When

* Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. i., pp. 106-108.

† McMaster, vol. ii., p. 72.

The highest rate was 25 cents and the lowest 7 cents per gallon. The owners of small country stills of less capacity than 400 gallons were to pay 54 cents per gallon yearly on the capacity of their stills, or, if they preferred, 7 cents per gallon on the product, or, 10 cents monthly upon the capacity of the still, with the privilege of taking out a license for one month instead of a year.- Bishop, History of Manufactures, vol. ii., p. 45.

| Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 205; Annals of Congress, 2d Congress, 1st session, pp. 584-589 and text on pp. 1374-1379.

the new government was established, Hamilton was directed to submit a plan for the creation of a mint.* His report was presented to Congress on January 28, 1791, during the first session of the Second Congress. In this report he treats the subject under the following heads: the nature of the money mint; the ratio between gold and silver; the proportion and composition of the alloy in each kind; the number, denominations, sizes and devices of the coins; whether the expenses of coining ought to be borne by the government or be deducted from the material itself; and whether foreign coins ought to pass current, and if so, at what rate and for how long.† Jefferson, too, submitted a plan for establishing uniformity in the currency, weights and measures of the country. He proposed a new coinage differing in value from the dollars then in circulation, suggesting that five grains of silver be added to the proper weight of the dollar without a proportional increase in its legal value. But this was too radical a change to be adopted. In 1792 Congress passed an act establishing a mint at which gold, silver and cop

Annals of Congress, vol. ii., p. 1530.

See his Works, vol. iii., p. 149; American State Papers, Finance, vol. i., pp. 91-107; Annals of Congress, 2d Congress, 1st session, pp. 20602086. For a discussion of his report, see Bolles, Financial History, vol. i., pp. 157-159; D. K. Watson, History of American Coinage, p. 33 et seq.

For the complete report, see American State Papers, Miscellaneous, vol. i., pp. 13-20.

| Act April 2, 2d Congress, 1st session, chap. xvi.; Annals of Congress, 2d Congress, 1st session, pp. 69-74, 486-490, 1350-1356; United States

THE MINT ESTABLISHED.

per coins were to be made. The gold coins were to be the eagle, of the value of 10 dollars or units, and to contain 247% grains of pure or 270 grains of standard gold, the half-eagle and the quarter-eagle, in proportion; the silver coins were to be the dollar or unit, of the value of the Spanish milled dollar and to contain 3714 grains of pure silver or 416 of standard silver,* the half-dollar, quarter-dollar, dime and half-dime; the copper coins were to be the cent, of the value of onehundredth part of a dollar and to contain 11 pwt. of copper, and the halfcent. The ratio between gold and silver was fixed at 15 to 1.1 The standard for gold coins was eleven parts fine to one part alloy. The alloy was to be composed of silver and copper, the proportion of silver not exceeding one-half. The standard fixed for sil

Statutes-at-Large, vol. i., p. 246. The bill was reported by Robert Morris, March 2, 1792. Watson, History of American Coinage, p. 52; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. i., pp. 371–373.

* Linderman says that Hamilton "in determining the quantity of fine silver for the dollar, did not take the lawful standard of the Spanish dollar of any particular issue, nor the average of the different issues, as his guide, but the actual average content of fine silver in the Spanish dollars then in circulation; which coin had for many years previously been, as it was then, the

129

ver coins was 1485 parts fine to 179 parts alloy, which was to be composed wholly of copper. Individuals could have gold and silver bullions coined free of charge; the coins so made were to be legal tender. Penalties were prescribed for debasing them, and the money of account was to be expressed in dollars. The control of the mint was at first given to the State Department, but before his retirement from office Hamilton recommended that it be placed in charge of the Treasury Department, which advice was followed.* When the bill came from the Senate, the tenth section provided that the gold and silver coins should be stamped on the obverse side with the figure of an eagle and the legend "United States of America,” and on the reverse side the head of the President, with his name and the order of Presidential succession. A cry of monarchy was immediately raised in the House, and, to satisfy the Republicans, the device was changed to one "emblematic of Liberty," and bearing the legend "Liberty." The Senate concurring in this amendment, the bill was passed.† As the country was

standard by which their moneys were generally sorely in need of small change, a sepa

measured, and in which contracts and money obligations in this country were discharged."— Money and Legal Tender, p. 25.

† Dewey, Financial History, pp. 103-104; Bolles, Financial History, pp. 159-160. See also D. K. Watson, History of American Coinage, pp. 54–58; J. L. Laughlin, Bimetallism in the United States, pp. 13-24, 227-228; Linderman, Money and Legal Tender, pp. 15-27.

‡ Watson, History of American Coinage, p. 57; White, Money and Banking, p. 40.

rate act was passed May 8, 1792, pro

Bolles, Financial History, pp. 160-161. See his letter quoted in Watson, History of American Coinage, pp. 69-71.

↑ Annals of Congress, 2d Congress, 1st session, pp. 483-486; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. i., p. 371. See also Madison's letter of March 28, 1792, quoted in Watson, History of American Coinage, pp. 59-60; also pp. 208-210.

« PreviousContinue »