Page images
PDF
EPUB

H. OF R.]

Protection of Trade.

[JUNE, 1797.

with them altogether, though he agreed they | Our great interests lay in the soil; and if ever had some weight; but it was well known that the vitals of the country were to be drawn tothe Grand Navy of Portugal had no weight gether for the purpose of protecting our comwhatever in the scale of the large navies of Eu- merce on the sea, he should greatly lament it. rope; it did not even enable her to protect her He believed the despotism of nations kept pace trade for, if either France or Great Britain | with the ratio of expense of their Governments. had the superiority in the Mediterranean, she He was sorry to say that he was more and more was under their control. He believed Denmark convinced that it was the constant aim of some and Sweden had thirty sail of the line each, and gentlemen in that House to increase the exhe wished gentlemen to calculate how much it penses of our Government. The propriety of would cost us to have such a navy. A fleet of establishing a navy had scarcely ever been seria few vessels would not then be able to afford ously considered; it was first begun under an protection to our trade; and it was wholly out alarm, and it had been continually carried on by of our power to have a fleet equal to that of the same means. Denmark or Sweden.

Mr. SWANWICK believed the expense of these frigates had been much greater than any future ones would be. When they were told they had cost £2,000 sterling a gun, it was evident there must have been great extravagance in the expense, as merchant vessels might be built as cheaply in this country as in any other. He supposed the extra expense had been owing to the want of some regular establishment to overlook the business, and because it had been undertaken at a time when other nations were at war, and of course when materials were very high. Sixteen thousand dollars worth of hemp had indeed been burnt by accident at Boston. As to the terms of seamen, though they might at first be high, when the service was known he doubted not they would fall.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS said, he had always opposed the establishment of a navy, and was the question now whether or not we should commence a navy he should certainly be against it; but, as the frigates were so far advanced, he thought they ought to finish them, especially when they considered the present critical situation of our affairs; for, if a general peace did not take place in Europe, the war would probably become a maritime war, and we might be involved in it. But he was still of opinion that if we must go into an expensive naval establishment for the protection of our commerce, we had better have none. But, say gentlemen, where will you find revenue? He believed, though we had no armed force, a considerable commerce would still be carried on,* and those who declined it would turn their attention to agriculture and manufactures, from which any deficiency of revenue would readily be supplied.

It was true, as had been stated, that they had been called upon from time to time for additional sums to complete these frigates, and he knew not when these calls would end.

Mr. GILES was obliged to the gentleman last up for his speech against the present bill, though he meant to vote for it; he would rather, however, that he had spoken in favor, and voted against the bill. Mr. G. said he should vote against the passing of the bill, and for the reasons assigned by that gentleman. He thought a navy would be a great evil for this country.

*And is still so carried on.

Mr. HARPER said gentlemen seem to abandon their objections to this bill by admitting that there was no probability it would not pass. But why? Because a majority of the House either think the measure is proper in itself, or from the particular circumstances of this country. It was surely a singular instance of modesty in gentlemen, after this concession, to argue against the passing of the bill.

Mr. H. did not admit that these frigates were commenced from an idea of laying the foundation of a large Navy Establishment, but from particular circumstances; and, said he, shall we, at a time when we are threatened with danger, abandon them? He trusted not; such conduct would be absurd in the extreme, and imply a character of imbecility which he hoped their councils would never deserve.

Mr. ALLEN said, he had some objection to the passing of the bill, but his objections were to the amendments which had been introduced into it, yet he did not know but he should vote for it. He thought there was a provision in the bill which went to prostrate this Government. He alluded to that part of it which directed the manner in which this force should be used. He considered this as a violation of the constitution, besides carrying upon the face of it an idea that one of the branches of this Government could not be trusted with the exercise of its power. Was it possible, he asked, for a Government to exist, when this confidence was refused to one of its branches? What were the people of the United States, and abroad, to think of this? Would not the people of this country think it their duty to destroy a power which could not be trusted; and would not foreigners despise it? It seemed as if this were the intention of gentlemen.

Mr. A. also objected to the clause limiting the duration of this bill; since this went to say that they not only distrusted the other branches of the Government, but themselves. A thing which must in its nature be perpetual, was there limited. He deprecated the idea of expense being an objection to this measure. Our emancipation from the chains of Great Britain, he said, was attended with a great expense; but was it not believed that the liberty and independence of this country were of superior value to money? He trusted they were. He could only suppose, therefore, that men who

[blocks in formation]

objected against the expense, must themselves be sordid and avaricious. If these frigates had been provided four years ago, he believed all our present difficulties would have been prevented, and a sum vastly less than that of which we had been robbed would have done the business. Mr. A. denied that ships of war could now be built in England for £1,000 a gun; that was formerly the price, but they now cost £1,500 per gun.

Mr. NICHOLAS had always been of opinion, that the expense of these frigates was a useless expense; he did not believe a case could happen, except within our own jurisdiction, where these vessels could be of advantage to us; but notwithstanding this was his opinion, he should vote for the passing of this bill, because he saw the sentiments of that House and the public were strongly in its favor, from a persuasion that the measure was necessary, and that the thing would be a continual topic of dispute until it was carried into effect.

He was willing, therefore, to let the vessels go to sea, believing that nothing short of actual experience would convince the supporters of this measure that it was useless, expensive, and injurious; and hoping that by one year's experience of the plaything, finding that money was of greater value than the frigates, all parties would concur in relinquishing it.

The question was then taken on the passing of the bill, and decided in the affirmative-yeas 78, nays 25, as follows:

YEAS John Allen, George Baer, jr., Theophilus Bradbury, David Brooks, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Christopher G. Champlin, James Cochran, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, James Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, George Dent, George Ege, Lucas Elmendorph, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, John Fowler, Jonathan Freeman, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., James Gillespie, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, David Holmes, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Edward Livingston, Samuel Lyman, Matthew Lyon, James Machir, William Matthews, John Milledge, Daniel Morgan, John Nicholas, Harrison G. Otis, Josiah Parker, Elisha R. Potter, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, William Smith, of Charleston, Richard Sprigg, jr., John Swanwick, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thomson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peleg Wadsworth, John Williams, and Robert Williams.

NAYS-Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Joshua Coit, John Dawson, Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, Andrew Gregg, Jonathan N. Havens, Walter Jones, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph Mc Dowell, Anthony New, Tompson J. Skinner, William Smith, (of Pinckney District,) Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Joseph B. Varnum, and Abraham Venable.

[H. OF R.

[blocks in formation]

Stamp duties: Naturalization certificates:

Lawyer's licenses: Conveyances.

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for laying duties on stamped vellum, parchment, and paper; when, the first section being under consideration,

Mr. KITTERA moved to add, "any certificates of naturalization dollars," as he thought foreigners, who were admitted to all the rights of citizens under this Government, could not be against paying a small tax on their admission to this right.

Mr. MACON thought this tax would fall very heavy upon persons who came into this country to live by their labor-many of whom were not able to pay their passage, but were indented by those who brought them for a number of years; and who, if this tax were paid, would have so much longer to serve.

Mr. BROOKS did not see this objection, as such persons might labor all their lives without becoming naturalized.

Mr. GORDON said, that by the naturalization act, no foreigner could be admitted to the rights of a citizen until he had been five years in the country, and therefore the objections of the gentleman from North Carolina could not have any weight.

The amendment was carried.

Mr. SWANWICK moved to strike out five dollars, and insert ten, for licenses to practise as a counsellor, attorney, &c. He thought, if these gentlemen were taxed at all, ten dollars would be as low a sum as they could well fix upon for the purpose.

Mr. VARNUM thought the tax should be much higher, if imposed at all. He spoke of the high tax laid upon the professors of the law in Massachusetts.

The amendment was carried, there being 53 in favor of it.

Mr. COCHRAN wished the tax to extend to lawyers who practised in the State Courts, as well as to those who practised in the Courts of the United States.

Mr. NICHOLAS objected to this proposition. The lawyers, in some of the States, were already very highly taxed; besides, he doubted the right of the United States to tax the lawyers of the State Courts, as they were necessary in the State Governments.

Mr. SWANWICK did not expect any objection could have been made to a tax so reasonable, especially when the bill proposed to tax merchants so heavily; they would not be able to

H. OF R.]

The Stamp Duty, &c.

[JUNE, 1797.

turn themselves without a stamp, and surely | To say a deed, which was legal by the laws of the lucrative profession of the law could not a State, could not be received in evidence, ex think much of paying this low tax. It was cept it was stamped, would be tantamount tc said, indeed, that the merchant did not ulti- the repealing of a State law. mately pay the duty, but the consumer; and he doubted not the lawyers would not fail to find out a way of making their clients pay the duty.

Mr. DENNIS objected to this tax on the same ground with the gentleman from Virginia. If a tax of this kind, he said, were laid upon the lawyers of the State Courts, it might be extended to any other officer of the Government, and thereby annihilate the State Governments.

Mr. LIVINGSTON was in favor of the amend ment, because he thought the State lawyers a fair object of taxation. He denied that it would be unconstitutional, or that it would operate hardly upon a particular class of men. It was not laid upon any particular class; but upon an instrument which, indeed, to exercise their professions, lawyers would be obliged to have; but it might as well be said that the tax upon rum and sugar would fall heavily upon the sellers of those articles, and that therefore no rum or sugar would be sold. The one tax fell upon the consumer, and the other upon the client. In the State of New York, Mr. L. said, the lawyers were not taxed at all.

Mr. MCDOWELL said, when he seconded the motion for striking out "five" for the purpose of inserting "ten" he did not intend the tax to be extended to the practisers in State Courts; nor did he think the constitution would warrant such an extension of it.

Mr. W. SMITH said, this subject had been frequently under discussion, both in the Committee of Ways and Means, and in that House. On this occasion, the majority of the Committee of Ways and Means was against laying a tax on deeds. He was in the minority. There was a provision, Mr. S. said, which declared that no paper upon which a duty was imposed by this act should be admitted in evidence; but there was afterwards a clause which allowed them to be admitted, on payment of ten dollars over and above the duty thereupon payable. He thought the tax would be a very good and a very profitable one.

Mr. Corr thought this was a tax which should be gone into with great caution, since, if it were carried, it might be the means of losing the whole bill. He thought the bill would be better passed without this provision; and if it were found expedient, it might be added hereafter.

Mr. GILES was opposed to this amendment, as interfering with the governments of the several States. All lands (except such as had been sold by the United States) were held from the States; and if this tax were to be agreed to, he believed the State courts would not refuse to admit a deed in evidence which was not stamped. Nothing would give so much alarm to the States as a subject of this sort.

Mr. SEWALL did not understand the distinction made between titles to land and titles to

tax on a deed, might be made with equal propriety to a tax on a bond or note. If they had a right to say these should not be received in evidence in a State court, unless they were stamped, they had a right to say the same with respect to a deed. Except it could be shown that the farmer was less able to pay than the merchant, he thought no other objection had any weight.

Mr. SITGREAVES was in favor of the amend-money. He thought the objection made to a ment; he wished to fix the principle. He thought that the State lawyers were a fair object of taxation, and that the profits of their business would very well bear it. But there was reason for making a distinction between the two cases. He thought there would be a hardship in extending the tax to practisers in county courts, as that would cause it to fall in some places very heavily. For instance, in Pennsylvania, there must be a separate admission into every court of every county; so that one man would probably have to pay to the amount of from two to three hundred dollars on account of this tax. He hoped the motion would be postponed for the present, and modified. He would do it himself, if time were given. The motion was withdrawn.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, he understood that deeds for the conveyance of lands would have been amongst the articles taxed. He though.. such a tax would be an eligible one, and in order to learn what were the objections to it, he proposed to add to the bill, "any deed for the conveyance of real estate dollars."

Mr. R. WILLIAMS thought there was a great difference between a note of hand and a deed. The State had nothing to do with the former, but much with the latter; since every State held grants of its lands, and a man must show his title from the original grant, before his title could be said to be a good one. He did not doubt the people being able to pay the tax; it was the principle which he contended against, which, if carried into effect, would cause a clashing of the authorities of the two Governments. If the United States could lay a tax of this sort, they might lay a tax upon every commission issued by a State.

Mr. NICHOLAS did not see the smallest differMr. R. WILLIAMS said, this proposition had ence between the two cases which had been been rejected in the Committee of Ways and stated. And when they came to the 13th secMeans, on the ground that such a tax would tion, he should endeavor to prove that to say clash with the jurisdiction of the States. He a piece of paper should not be received in evihad the same objection to this that he should dence in a court, which was lawful to be rehave to laying a tax upon the State lawyers.ceived by the laws of the State, would be a vi

JUNE, 1797.]

DEBATES OF CONGRESS.

Duty on Stamps.

olation of State sovereignty. He was not of opinion, with the gentleman from Connecticut, that they should take up the subject partially, rather than not pass the bill. He thought it best to consider a tax upon its broadest basis. It was not fair to exclude any thing which stood upon the same ground. He wished the principle to be thus fairly tested. He should, therefore, vote for the tax on deeds.

Mr. LYON hoped, that if this tax was agreed to, purchases of a small amount would be excluded. Mr. SWANWIOK said there would doubtless be a difference made in the duty between large and small purchases. He also disagreed with the gentleman from Connecticut. The principle, he said, was either right or not; if it were right, it should be made general: if not, it ought not to be adopted.

32.

The question was put, and negatived-47 to

On motion, the committee rose, and had leave to sit again.

TUESDAY, June 27.
Stamp duties.

BANK NOTES.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill laying duties on stamped vellum, parchment, and paper, when

Mr. NICHOLAS moved to strike out the clause exempting bank notes from duty, as he could see no reason why notes upon which a profit was made, should be exempted from duty more than others. He trusted all notes would be placed on the same footing.

Mr. W. SMITH hoped gentlemen did not mean, by moving to strike out this exemption, to destroy the bill. He thought the observation of the gentleman from Connecticut yesterday, against embarrassing the bill by doubtful objects, had weight. On this ground, though he was before of opinion deeds ought to have been inserted, he did not vote for inserting them. He trusted the gentleman had not fully considered the subject, and that when he did so, he would not persist in his motion.

Mr. NICHOLAS believed if the favorite object of every gentleman were to be exempted, there would be nothing left upon which to lay a tax. If to oppose this, were to defeat the bill, he meant to defeat it; as he wished the tax to go to all objects of the same kind. He had no idea of favoring one interest at the expense of another; he hoped, therefore, his amendment would be agreed to.

Mr. LYON expected the gentleman from South Carolina was about to have given some reasons why bank notes ought not to be taxed as well as others; but he was disappointed. He believed those who issued these notes got a good profit from them, and that it was, therefore, reasonable they should pay their proportion towards the support of Government.

Mr. W. SMITH thought the tax an improper
Banks were taxed in another part of the

one.

[H. OF R.

bill, on the transfer of their shares. A tax on
As for
bank notes, he said, would introduce a vast deal
of confusion throughout the country.
himself he did not care any thing about it; but
he believed, if it were agreed to, it would
produce so many objections against the bill as
to prevent its passing.

Mr. BROOKS was against stamping bank notes, as they were not stamped in any country whatever.* Indeed they were different from other notes, as they were the representatives of specie; they might, therefore, as well stamp dollars or guineas. In short, the subject was too important and intricate to be gone into at this late period of the session.

Mr. VENABLE said, in proportion as the tax What was the was general, it would be just. object of the bill? It was to tax that right which an individual possesses in society, of transferring his property, and the evidences of it; it was also to tax him for the right he had of using his credit. Though the argument of the gentleman last up might appear specious, that a bank note was the representative of specie, it was not very solid; it was the representative of the credit of the bank, and circulated for its interest. An individual, if he had sufficient credit, might issue notes as well as a corporation; and, in that case, his notes would be charged with the duty, whilst those of a From whence, said corporation would not. Mr. V., is this reasoning drawn? It was drawn from the doctrine of favoritism-it was meant to favor the moneyed interest, which was already sufficiently encouraged by their incorporation. There seemed to be no objection to the principle; but merely to the convenience of the thing. If it could be shown that the tax would materially operate upon the circulation of bank notes, so as to injure the operation of money transactions, it might have some weight with him; but it was none, to say this bill must pass, and therefore let us avoid any thing in which there may be any difficulty. Such assertions went only to this, where you can tax the property of an individual, do it; but do not meddle with corporations, as this would be attended with some difficulty. He wished, if the bill passed, that it should operate equally.

Mr. Corr wished the gentleman from Virginia would withdraw his motion, until he took the sense of the committee upon one which he proposed to make, and which was calculated, if agreed to, to supersede the one he had made. He would state what it was. It was his opinion that small notes should be exempted from duty. He should propose, therefore, that there should be charged on all notes exceeding fifty dollars and not exceeding one hundred dollars, ten cents, and that all of less value should go free.

After a few remarks upon this motion, in which it was observed that it would defeat the

* Taxed in Great Britain, with the privilege of commutation for a gross sum.

H. OF R.]

Duty on Stamps.

bill entirely, as it would only be to make so many more notes at fifty dollars, if the sum were larger, Mr. Corr consented that the fifty should be struck out and left blank; when the question was taken and negatived, there being only twenty-five votes for it.

Mr. NICHOLAS renewed his motion.

[JUNE, 1797.

when an individual gave a note, after it was paid, there was an end of it. Bank notes might be issued twenty-times, or oftener; it was necessary, therefore, to tax them in a different way from other notes. He supposed the same provision might be adopted here as was adopted in England. They might be allowed to be issued for a certain number of years-say three. This would remedy every kind of inconvenience arising from reissuing. As to notes now in

Mr. SITGREAVES hoped it would not prevail. It had been admitted that if it could be proved that the stamping of bank notes would embarrass their circulation, it would be a good objec-circulation, the way to prevent inconvenience tion to the tax. He believed he could easily show that it would not only impede their circulation, but depreciate their value. The tax would not certainly be made to operate upon notes already issued, but upon those issued after the act took place; so that it would be necessary that every citizen throughout the United States should be acquainted with the date of their law, which would do away all confidence in bank paper. The result of this uncertainty would be that the banks would have to call in all their outstanding notes, which would cause an immediate depreciation of their value. He trusted, therefore, that so objectionable a measure would not be entered upon.

would be to fix the time after which all notes should be renewed by stamped notes. The consequence would be, that all notes would, by degrees, be returned to the bank, and no difficulty would arise from doing so. Six or nine months might be allowed for this purpose. This was the way in which all the banks in England, except the Bank of England, were subject to the stamp duty; that bank, he believed, had paid a certain sum to be excused from the tax. Perhaps the same privilege might be allowed here.

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

Mr. GALLATIN said, he had had his doubts with respect to the propriety of stamping bank | notes; he was not sure whether it might not Mr. RUTLEDGE thought bank notes a proper have a dangerous effect on their circulation. object of taxation, and had not heard one good On a further consideration of the subject, how-reason why they should be exempted from the ever, all his doubts had vanished. He now proposed duty. The arguments of his colleague thought this amendment essential, just, and (Mr. SMITH,) that bank notes now in circulation right. Indeed, when they proposed to lay a would be affected, and their currency checked, stamp duty upon all bills and notes, there ap- he would answer, by observing that the duty peared to be no good reason why the notes of could not operate upon notes now in circulaany incorporation whatever should be excepted. tion; it was not proposed to have them called He had heard only one objection; which was, in, but to have those stamped which shall be that these notes differed essentially from others, issued after a certain day. He did not think because they were the real representatives of the weight and importance which generally specie kept in the bank from whence they were attach to the observations of the gentleman issued. He could not see the distinction en- from Pennsylvania (Mr. SITGREAVES) attach to deavored to be drawn. Private notes were those now offered by him. With respect to the always given for some consideration, whether circulation of bank notes being embarrassed by for cash or other property, was of no conse- the necessity there would be for the people at quence to them. Indeed, if they turned their large being acquainted with the date of the law, attention to the nature of bank notes, they the objection would apply to private as well as would be found to be a very fair object of bank notes. The people throughout the country must inform themselves, and the most ignorant will inform themselves of the date of the act; and whenever a bank note or a private note shall be offered to them, they will always inquire if it was issued subsequent or previous to a certain day. The gentleman from New York (Mr. BROOKS) was certainly incorrect in saying that "bank paper was not stamped in any country whatever." In Great Britain, Mr. R. said, the paper of all private banks is stamped; that of the Bank of England has been exempted from the stamp duty, by the bank having paid the Government a sum, in gross, by way of commutation. Although the moneyed interest has always been well and largely represented in England, yet bank notes are taxed there, and the circulation of them has not been embarrassed by this duty; on the contrary, the sys

taxation.

Where an individual gave his note, it was not likely that he would derive any profit from it; many of such notes were what was called "accommodation notes;" all were acknowledgments of debt, and therefore no proofs of wealth; but bank notes were never issued except to produce a profit to the bank; therefore, to exempt them from duty, would be to exempt those which were best entitled to pay.

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

Bank notes were issued and reissued; but

« PreviousContinue »