Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 1 (of 16)

by United States. Congress

Friday, March 1.

Official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth resolutions contained in the motion of yesterday, respecting the official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury.

The third resolution being under consideration, in the words following, viz:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury has violated the law, passed the fourth of August, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, making appropriations of certain moneys authorized to be borrowed by the same law, in the following particulars, to wit:

"1. By applying a certain portion of the principal borrowed to the payment of the interest falling due upon that principal, which was not authorized by that or any other law.

"2. By drawing part of the same moneys into the United States without the instructions of the President of the United States."

Mr. Barnwell.—Mr. Chairman, before I proceed to discuss the observations which yesterday fell from the gentleman who introduced the resolutions now before us, I cannot refrain from saying that I am extremely happy that, in passing through the medium of that gentleman's examination, this subject has changed its hue from the foul stain of peculation to the milder coloring of an illegal exercise of discretion, and a want of politeness in the Secretary of the Treasury. I feel happy, because I always am so when any man charged with guilt can acquit himself; and the more so now, when a man in a high responsible office, and high in the estimation of his countrymen, can reduce a charge from a quality calculated to have excited an alarm, even in Pandemonium, to such a shape as I fancy will scarce serve to satisfy the uncommon curiosity which it appears to have excited. As I have never been in the habit of taking notes, I shall depend upon memory in answering the gentleman from Virginia; although I imagine, as that gentleman usually sticks very close to his point, whatever it may be, that, in pursuing his charges, I shall substantially answer his arguments. In commenting upon the two first resolutions, to which I am by order confined, I shall consider, in the first instance, what regards the right of drawing money into this country. The gentleman appears not to have considered the law properly, for there cannot be a doubt that the President had a right to make what arrangements he pleased, in order to attain what he might consider a proper modification of the debt due by the United States abroad. He might have borrowed the money here, or have paid it here; he might have borrowed the money in England, or wherever he thought fit. I will ask the gentleman by what precise authority he borrowed the money in Amsterdam and Antwerp, and paid it in Paris? Certainly by none but that discretion which has been depended upon to modify the debt in the manner most conducive to the interest of the United States. I take it, then, for granted, Mr. Chairman, that the right of the President to draw the money borrowed here, or to send it any where, must be conceded. The question will then arise, whether the Secretary of the Treasury had a right to do this or not, and whether this has not been done without, nay, against the instructions of the President? I really consider this as one of the most extraordinary cases that I have ever known exhibited. Let us consider its form. A highly important trust, of no less import than the discretionary use of fourteen millions of dollars, is placed in the President of the United States; he, by a general commission, and by special instruction, deputes this power to the Secretary of the Treasury, stating that he is to conform to these and whatever instructions he might from time to time give him. Let any man seriously examine these powers, and I am of opinion that the Secretary, under these, had a right to draw, if he thought proper, unless instructed to the contrary; for the President conveys a complete power to modify the debt, provided that it should be, with all convenient despatch, applied to pay the principal and interest due to France; for where the payments are to be made is certainly left to the Secretary. If this has not been exercised advantageously, this is another circumstance which the gentleman himself has not questioned. But, says the gentleman, the Secretary, under these instructions, had no special authority to draw; notwithstanding which, he began to draw in 1790, and has continued to draw, at different times, into this country the enormous sum of three millions of dollars, and therefore he must have done this without, nay, against the instructions of the President, who, it is presumed, having delegated this great trust, has never, for three years, inquired into the performance of it. Can this be the inference of common sense? Can this be the inference of the experience which we have had of the President, one of the prominent features of whose character always has been an industry to investigate particulars, as remarkable as his sagacity to frame generals? If, then, instructions have not been given, or have been exceeded, was it necessary for us to come in aid of the President, he who by our law has the power, which we ourselves cannot exercise, of removing any of the Executive officers at pleasure? It certainly cannot be necessary; for, as this officer continues to act, we must conclude that he has either acted by instructions, or in such manner as to have given satisfaction to his principal without them. Really, Mr. Chairman, I cannot but believe that if suspicion had not led the gentleman from Virginia astray, the usual correctness of his understanding would have prevented him from pursuing such an ignis fatuus as this.

Mr. W. Smith regretted that so important an inquiry had been instituted at the very close of the session, when the members were thronged with business of an indispensable nature, and it was scarcely possible for them to bestow that attention and deliberation which the nature of the subject called for. But, while he expressed this regret, he assured the committee that it was mingled with much satisfaction, in finding that the vague charges of mismanagement, with which the public had long been alarmed, were at length cast into a shape susceptible of investigation and decision. Previous to an examination of the specific charge then under consideration, he claimed the indulgence of the committee in offering a few preliminary remarks, which, though they did not bear precisely upon the charge itself, yet were intimately connected with the subject-matter of the inquiry, and were justified by the general remarks of gentlemen who had preceded him.

In recurring back to the origin and progress of this examination, it must appear somewhat surprising that that which, in the commencement of the session, was sounded forth as gross peculation, now turned out to be nothing more than a mere substitution of funds, and that that which was announced as abominable corruption, was dwindled away into a mere drawing of money from Europe into this country, to be applied here according to law.

Whatever credit might be due to the motives which had originated this inquiry, every member would concur in the sentiment, that in a government constituted like that of the United States, which had nothing but the public confidence for its basis, premature alarms and groundless suspicions respecting the conduct of public officers were pregnant with the most injurious consequences. This opinion was more peculiarly applicable to the important station of Secretary of the Treasury. Intrusted with the management of a large revenue, and necessarily clothed with some latitude of discretion, it was to be expected that he would excite the jealousy of the public vigilance; but as long as he kept in view the injunctions of law, and the public good, his reputation was entitled to that security which is due to every citizen.

An officer, intrusted with the care and distribution of public moneys, is generally looked at with a watchful eye; mankind are too prone to suspect the purity of his conduct; slight insinuations are but too often sufficient to injure him in the public estimation. Such being the natural propensity of things, it doubtless behoved those who wished for tranquillity in the country to withhold charges not clearly warranted by proof—to suspend animadversions which were not likely to terminate in conviction. A contrary proceeding had an inevitable tendency unnecessarily to alarm the public mind, to instil into it suspicions against the integrity of men in high stations, to weaken their public confidence in the Government, and to enervate its operations.

There was something remarkable in the nature of the present allegations against the Secretary. Taking them all into view, they presented nothing which involved self-interested, pecuniary considerations; and in this, they essentially differed from accusations against financiers in other countries, to whom motives of interest were generally ascribed as the source of their peculations. To the Secretary, no such motive was imputed; notwithstanding former insinuations against his integrity, the sum of all the charges now amounted to nothing more than arrogance, or an assumption of power, or an exercise of unauthorized discretion.

Mr. S. proceeded next to examine the charge under consideration. It consisted of two items: the first, the application of a certain portion of the principal sum borrowed in Europe to the payment of interest falling due upon that principal, which it was contended was not authorized by any law; the second, the drawing part of the same moneys into the United States, without the instructions of the President.

The first item of this supposed violation of law appeared of so frivolous a nature that it did not merit much discussion; at any rate, it was more an objection of form than of substance. If he comprehended well the purport of the charge, it was nothing more than this—that the Secretary having moneys at his disposal in Europe applicable to the purchase of stock in this country, and having at the same time moneys in this country applicable to the payment of the interest abroad, had substituted the one for the other. He had paid the foreign interest out of the foreign funds, and he had purchased stock with the domestic funds. This was the heinous offence with which he was charged, and which was thought sufficient to remove him from office. If the moneys in Europe might have been drawn to this country by bills, for the purchase of the debt, it might have equally been drawn here, by ordering the application of a sum in Europe, for a purpose which would be represented by an equal sum here, to be applied to the purchase. The substance, not the form, is to decide whether this mode of negotiating the matter was proper. Suppose bills had been ordered to be drawn on the commissioners, and remitted to them on account of the foreign interest, would not this have been as regular as to draw them for sale? Did the execution of the law require that the Secretary, having funds in Europe with which the foreign interest might be discharged, should nevertheless remit moneys abroad for that purpose, and then, having funds in this country with which the purchases of the debt might be made, should draw bills to bring the foreign funds here? Was there any necessity for this complex operation, for the expense of remittance, the probable loss on the sale of bills, the loss of interest while the money was in transitu, when the whole matter could be negotiated by the simple and economical mode pursued? So far from this arrangement being a ground of censure, Mr. S. asserted that, had the Secretary pursued the other mode, he would have been animadverted upon with great severity for such an extraordinary course. He would have been accused of ignorance of his duty, and every loss incidental to the transaction would have been charged to his account.

The second division of the charge, being of more magnitude, required a more lengthy discussion. This instance of violation consisted in a supposed deviation from the instructions of the President, or a supposed acting without any instruction whatever. It was, however, begging the question; it was taking for granted that which did not appear, and which ought not to be presumed. And here, Mr. S. observed, the gentlemen on the other side had entirely reversed one of the fundamental maxims of criminal jurisprudence, which declared that innocence should be presumed and guilt proved; whereas they had presumed guilt, and called upon the accused to prove his innocence.

And what was the slender basis on which the presumption was built? Why, say the gentlemen, the instructions from the President to the Secretary, which have been laid before the House, relate only to the payment of the French debt, and convey no authority to draw any of the foreign loan into this country for the purchase of stock; and hence they infer, he had no authority for this latter purpose.

To comprehend the fallacy of the inference, it was only necessary to recur to the laws, and to the President's commission to the Secretary to negotiate the loans. Two acts of Congress had passed; one on the 4th of August, the other on the 12th of August, 1790. The first authorized a loan of twelve millions of dollars, applicable to the payment of the French debt; the other, a loan of two millions, applicable to the purchase of the domestic debt. The President's commission to the Secretary embraced both acts and both objects, and under that commission one loan was negotiated applicable to both objects. True it is, that the President's first instructions were confined to one object, namely, the French debt; but the inference is not that no other instructions were given, and that the Secretary acted without authority; but the very reverse, that the President either left the other object to the general discretion of the Secretary, who was, ex officio, the proper agent and his representative; or that he reserved it for subsequent and occasional instructions.

This inference must be the true one; first, because a contrary supposition would impute to the President an illegal intention, that of applying all the moneys borrowed under both acts to the object of one only; secondly, because the commission extending to the borrowing fourteen millions of dollars, and embracing both objects, and the instructions being confined to twelve millions of dollars, and to only one object, it followed that the other either was left to discretionary management, or to after regulation, for the law enjoined the execution of both.

If presumption, then, was to govern, the more natural presumption was, that the officer acted according to some general discretion reposed in him, or according to instructions from time to time given. These instructions may have been verbal, as well as written. The written instructions given in the first instance were evidently confined to the object of the first act. The necessary conclusion is, that the application of the moneys borrowed under the second act was not meant to be included in that instruction, but was left to be regulated by a general discretion, or by occasional directions, verbal or otherwise.

Having gone through this resolution, Mr. S. observed, that, if there was as little of criminality in the subsequent charges as in that which he had just discussed—and from an attentive examination he sincerely believed it—he was satisfied that, notwithstanding all the severe animadversions within, and all the virulent calumny without, the walls of Congress, the conduct of the Secretary would come forth chaste and unblemished. Instead of any thing being detected which would disgrace Pandemonium, nothing could be chargeable to him which would sully the purest angel in heaven. Whatever difference of opinion might exist as to the wisdom and benefit of his measures, he was confident in saying, that in every thing the Secretary had done, he had been guided by principles honorable and patriotic, and he trusted that a very great majority of the committee would, by their votes, evince the same sentiment. The sword of justice, it was said, ought at times to be taken from its scabbard to keep great public functionaries within the pale of the law; but it should be remembered that if Justice had its sword to punish the guilty, it had likewise its shield to protect the innocent. If the Secretary had committed a wanton violation of law, let the sword be drawn forth for his punishment; but if he has pursued the dictates of an enlightened patriotism, the committee were called upon to raise the shield for the defence of a faithful officer.

Mr. Findlay addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Chairman: Being strongly impressed with the importance of our time, which is now so near an end, though I had the honor of seconding the resolutions, I took no part in the debates of yesterday; nor will I now detain you with replies to many of the arguments which have been offered against the resolution now under discussion.

Upon one argument frequently introduced by the gentleman last up, viz: the greatness of the Secretary's character, &c., I will only make a single remark. There is no character officially known in Executive departments of this Government, who merits pre-eminence, or to whom a degree of greatness can be ascribed, but in proportion to his prompt execution of the laws, and the attention with which he discharges the duties of his office. From this rule, the President himself is not exempt, much less a subordinate Secretary, whose appointment is during pleasure, and the duties assigned him of a changeable and temporary nature. But to come to the resolution before us. The first questions that offer themselves, are: Was the money in question appropriated to special and distinct purposes? Did the Secretary of the Treasury apply the money to other uses than the law directed?

In answer to the first, it is only necessary to advert to the law authorizing the loans. The law authorizing the twelve million loan, appropriates whatever amount may be borrowed solely to the payment of debts then due to France and Holland. The law authorizing the two million loan directs the application thereof to the redemption of the domestic debt, in aid of about —— dollars, arising from the revenues previous to the 1st of January, ——. These appropriations are precise, distinct, and unconditional. With respect to the uses, no room was left for the exercise of discretion. The will of the Legislature was express and clearly defined; it left no room for evasion, nor any excuse for mistake; nor did the President transfer to the Secretary any other authority or instructions than what the law expressed.

But the gentleman from South Carolina says, that the presumption is, that the President did give other instructions than he has communicated; that, in this case, presumption should be admitted as conclusive testimony, and that neither the Secretary nor the President is obliged to communicate the instructions or authority to us. The gentleman is a lawyer: I will appeal to himself; I will appeal to all the professional members on the floor, whether presumptions can be admitted as proof, where, in the nature of the case, positive testimony can be procured. Surely, in courts of justice, positive testimony is always required, and presumptive is rarely admitted; but in this case, the presumptive is by the gentleman set in opposition to the positive. However, this is not the case in fact. The President did give commission and instructions, and those are fully communicated to us. If he conceived we had no right to demand them, he would have told us so; if he had kept any part of them back, he would have informed us, and assigned his reasons for doing so. I presume that the President has acted the part of a candid, honest man; the gentleman presumes the reverse. The suggestion that this House, which has the exclusive right of originating the appropriation of money, has no right to be informed of the application of it, is so novel and extraordinary, so inconsistent with every idea of propriety and good government, that it requires no reply.

Did the Secretary apply the money borrowed in Europe agreeably to the legal appropriations and the instructions of the President? No, he did not; though some of the gentlemen do not acknowledge this, yet the Secretary has clearly acknowledged it himself, and has filled his reports with labored and ingenious apologies for so doing. He has suggested a variety of motives, and taken infinite pains to charm us with the mighty public advantages resulting from his doing so. He acknowledges combining the loans, and directing the application of them, in the very offset, in a way contrary to law; he acknowledges having drawn to this country, and applied in Europe, to uses for which other moneys were appropriated, near $3,000,000. Out of this he has paid upwards of $400,000 of the French debt, to St. Domingo. I do not complain of paying the interest due in Europe out of the money drawn here. The gentlemen apply the force of their arguments, with great attention, to support or apologize for this part of the Secretary's conduct, as if against this only the charge in the resolution lay. But we do not object to applying that money in Holland, which ought to have been brought here, if the money which, according to the appropriation, should have gone to Holland, had been put to the use here for which the other was intended. A simple exchange of money for the purposes of conveniency or economy, is properly one of those cases to which ministerial discretion may safely be extended; but the question before us is, the money has not been replaced. The amount of money has not been applied to the uses intended; consequently, the appropriation has been disregarded. It is acknowledged that though there were upwards of $1,300,000 of the Domestic Sinking Fund, and upwards of $2,300,000 drawn from Europe, besides the moneys applied to the relief of St. Domingo; yet, when these inquiries began, there was not $1,000,000 applied to the redemption of the public debt, and even yet the whole of the domestic appropriation has not been applied to the Sinking Fund, notwithstanding that the public debt is now, and has for some time been under par. We have it on record that the Secretary never informed the commissioners of the drafts he made on Europe, although the fund was exclusively to be at their disposal.

Mr. Giles rose.—He was sensible that he stood in a peculiarly delicate situation, in which nothing short of the public good could have induced him to place himself. If a public and highly responsible officer had violated the laws, it was necessary that he should be called to an account for it; and to determine whether in the instances before the House, he had been guilty of that violation, it is necessary to compare the testimony with the facts alleged in the resolutions before the committee. He first adverted to the law authorizing the President of the United States to borrow twelve millions of dollars for the purpose of paying the foreign debt. On this, he remarked that the authority of borrowing was expressly given to the President, no doubt, with an eye to the personal virtues of the character who fills that office; the loan is also directed to be made solely for the purpose of paying the public debt. Here he remarked, that in every appropriation law, the appropriation is always emphatically mentioned, which is an evidence that the Legislature intend to remain the sole judges of the applications of money. He read a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, who was employed by the President to negotiate this loan, to Mr. Short, the Secretary's foreign agent for this purpose, dated the 9th of May, 1791, in which the Secretary informs Mr. Short, that one million and a half of the money he had obtained on loan, was destined for France; of which sum he was authorized to apply immediately one million, but to reserve eight hundred thousand florins to answer such subsequent directions as he should receive from the President. He cited this passage to show that the million and a half which had been obtained on loan, was destined for France.

To remove any doubt that might remain upon this head, he referred to a preceding letter from the Secretary to Mr. Short, dated the 13th of April, in which it is also expressly said, that of the two millions borrowed, one million and a half is intended for France, the remaining half million to wait for further directions. Having established this point, he adverted to the resolution before the committee, which says, that he applied a portion of the principal borrowed to the payment of the interest falling due upon that principal, without being authorized so to do by any law. To show this, he referred to a report of the 3d of January, containing sundry statements respecting foreign loans. That part of the report to which he alluded in proof of the fact, stated in general terms, a sum paid on account of foreign loans, and this sum was taken from the principal borrowed, and amounted to 1,833,189 florins. If his statement was accurate, the fact he wished to establish was proved. He wanted more light, he confessed, than he could collect from the Secretary's official communications. He should not go into the examination of what circumstances might have induced the Secretary to deviate from the positive injunctions of the law, or to make any remarks upon his conduct, until he had heard what gentlemen would say to controvert the fact he wished to establish.

Another fact of consequence he wished to prove, viz: that part of the money obtained on loan in Europe had been drawn over, though not wanted here for any public purpose. This appeared from other papers. He turned to the instructions from the President to the Secretary of the Treasury, authorizing him to borrow $14,000,000, in which the Secretary is cautioned to keep in view the two several acts authorizing the loans, and the distinct conditions they contemplate. By the instructions of the President, the Secretary is authorized to apply the moneys. In the execution of the trust confided to him, the President generally directs him to employ Mr. Short to negotiate the loans, to borrow in the manner prescribed by the acts, and to discharge immediately the arrears of interest due to the French, to which purpose and to the complete payment of that debt the twelve million loan was altogether appropriated. If this money, then, was shown to have been drawn here, it was neither warranted by law nor by the President's instructions. The Secretary did begin to draw as early as 1790, and had continued to draw from time to time, till 1793, without giving notice of this to the Legislature. Having shown that the Secretary had drawn without authority to draw, he next proceeded to consider the purpose of those drafts.

The money thus drawn for was not, he stated, applied to the purchase of the public debt. No money obtained from foreign loans was thus applied until this year; the domestic resources appropriated to this object were never exhausted. These were the facts involved in the first resolution, which he wished to establish. Before he proceeded further into the discussion, he wished to hear what gentlemen had to say to controvert them. He wished to see justice done in the matter before the House; he wished justice, also, to be tempered with moderation and mercy; and if gentlemen could show the necessity for deviations from positive law, which he had endeavored to point out, it would exonerate the Secretary from a very great share of blame.

Mr. Barnwell called for the reading of certain parts of the two acts authorizing the loans. One of the 4th of August, authorizes a loan of $12,000,000, to be obtained without limitation as to the interest, for the purpose of paying the foreign debt; the other is of the 12th of August, for $2,000,000, the interest to be not more than five per cent., and for the purpose of reducing the domestic debt.

Mr. Sedgwick, to disprove that the drafts alluded to have been made without the knowledge of the Legislature, called for the reading of the President's Speech to both Houses on the 8th of December, 1790, and a subsequent report of the Secretary of the Treasury to the same point. By this, it appeared that the power of borrowing, having been exercised under the joint authority of the two acts, the Secretary states a difficulty that had occurred to him on the subject of the drafts alluded to. The money having been obtained on an interest of five per cent., exclusive of douceurs, he wished the Legislature to determine whether it might strictly be considered as borrowed under the second act, which limited the interest at five per cent. This was sufficient, he conceived, to show that the Legislature were not ignorant of those drafts, and an act was passed solving the Secretary's doubt, and sanctioning his construction of the law.

Mr. Giles remarked that he had drawn before that sanction was obtained.

Mr. Fitzsimons observed, on the first charge in the resolution, that, as the interest of the money borrowed in Europe is payable where borrowed, it was economical in the Secretary to pay that interest with moneys there, which were to be drawn here, and replace the sum by taking the amount from the funds here destined for that payment. A financial operation of this nature is simple, and saves the trouble of drawing with one hand and remitting with the other. He conceived there was no just foundation for the first charge.

Mr. Laurance said, that when the resolutions calling for information from the Treasury Department were first brought forward, the public mind was impressed with an idea that there were moneys unaccounted for. This charge is now dropped, and it is honorable to the officer concerned that, after much probing, nothing is found to support it. The inquiry now is, whether a debt was paid out of this or that fund. He did not admit the fact, that it was paid out of any other moneys than what law strictly warranted. He went into a history of the subject from its origin. He stated the nature and purposes of the loans. There was nothing to prevent the President from consolidating the two loans, provided such an arrangement did not interfere with the purposes intended by them. The President employed the Secretary to obtain the loans under the joint authority of both acts, as it was found that the object could best be carried into effect by such an arrangement. The money thus borrowed became subject to the appropriations of both acts, and not exclusively for the payment of the foreign debt. Then, as part of that money was subject to be drawn here for the redemption of the domestic debt, and the interest of the loan was to be paid with domestic funds, it was perfectly reasonable to avoid further drafts and remittances to pay the debt there with money there, and replace it here with money already here. The fact stated in the first part of the resolution is, by this plain statement of the case, substantially refuted, and appears altogether unfounded; but if the fact is proved, what is implied? No injury to the interests of the community; the intention of the Legislature has been in every point fulfilled. If the Secretary had acted differently, he would have been guilty of an absurdity, and to blame for sacrificing the public interest and neglecting the spirit of a law for a strict and unprofitable observance of its letter.

Mr. Sedgwick, by adverting to the Speech of the President and Report of the Secretary, had shown that the Legislature had been made acquainted with the drafts, and sanctioned future ones on the same principles. The latter part of the first resolution criminates the Secretary for making them without instructions from the President. Even if this was the case, he did not know whether this was really reprehensible. He defended it on the ground, that the Secretary is the officer appointed by law to superintend the finances and apply all moneys agreeably to appropriations. He took a view of the subject, as stated by Mr. Laurance, and concluded by asking, whether, if the Secretary was found, on a critical examination, to have deviated in a trifle from the letter of the law, such a deviation was sufficient to warrant the alarm's being sounded from St. Croix to St. Mary's, and whether the precious time of the House, at the close of the session with a vast variety of business on their hands, should be taken up in so unprofitable and frivolous an investigation?

Mr. Giles said, the transaction alluded to by the gentleman to controvert the fact laid down in the first part of the resolution before the committee was not immaterial, as they had endeavored to show it. It was not merely a financial operation to avoid the necessity of drawing and remitting. The truth was, that the Secretary had drawn over nearly $3,000,000. The President's authority was limited to $2,000,000.

Mr. Laurance was of opinion, that if the President, or his agent, had drawn the whole amount of the money obtained under both loans, he could not be said to have gone beyond his authority. He was authorized to borrow $12,000,000 to pay the arrears on the foreign debt, and to modify the whole. In the execution of this trust, he might have found it advisable to draw to the country the whole of that sum. It had been found advisable to draw for part, and to pay the French by shipping produce to St. Domingo. If the money expended for supplies to St. Domingo is deducted, the balance will be found less than $2,000,000.

Mr. L. contended, that the interest of the moneys borrowed was not paid out of the principal of the loan, as set forth in the first charge of the resolution before the committee. If gentlemen would attend to the history of the transaction, they would find this strictly true. This interest was paid out of the moneys borrowed for the reduction of the public debt, and not out of those intended to pay the French, and the funds appropriated for the payment of that interest were here to replace the former and be applied as those were appropriated. He referred to the President's Speeches at the commencement of the two last sessions, to show that the loan was obtained under the joint authority of both acts; and adverted to the act of Congress, in consequence of a doubt suggested by the Secretary, explaining that the moneys first obtained might be considered as borrowed under the act authorizing the two million loan. Having shown the first charge in the resolution to be unfounded, he turned to the second.

The Secretary is accused of drawing moneys to this country without instructions. In this transaction the President must be considered as the principal, and the Secretary the agent, or the Secretary must be looked upon as the principal. If the President is the principal, and he be authorized to obtain the loans, as soon as the money is obtained it naturally falls under the direction of the financier; but if it be contended that the President was to have applied the moneys as well as to borrow them, then we have nothing to do with the agent; that agent is accountable to his principal, and as this principal is not called to an account by the Legislature for any improper exercise of discretion, he must be considered as having acted strictly within the law. If the Secretary is considered as the principal, (and by a strict attention to the law, he believed, it would be found so, for the President is by it authorized to borrow, and it is not expressed who shall apply the money,) then it was not one of the duties of the Secretary to procure the instructions of the President; being the principal, and consequently having the direction of the money borrowed, he is made the judge of the time of drawing, to fulfil the intention of the law. Was the money, he asked, to have remained in the hands of the banker in Europe? Since it was borrowed for the purchase of the public debt, the sooner it was drawn over the better, and the Secretary having the direction of those moneys, could do it without consulting the President. He proceeded to show, however, that the Secretary had by no means acted entirely without regard to the President's instructions. His letter to Mr. Short, which had been read, expressly says, that he is waiting for instructions from the President, and the only instructions brought forward clearly show, that he did not act without them. On this occasion it was not necessary, he conceived, that all the private communications between these two officers should be brought forward; indeed, many of the instructions might have been verbal, and of a private nature. Another proof lies before the committee, to show that the Secretary did not act independent of instructions. A report of the Secretary mentions that some matters relative to the loans were under consideration of the President of the United States. This document, the gentlemen were in possession of when they framed the resolutions; and it, in his opinion, left very little ground indeed to suppose that the Secretary had acted without instructions.

Mr. Mercer next rose. None of the communications from the Secretary of the Treasury had removed his suspicions relative to the transactions of that department. What had fallen in the course of the discussion, had not removed his doubts. He confessed himself more at a loss than ever to account for the conduct of that officer. To judge of the propriety of his conduct, it was necessary to consider what his duties are, and investigate whether a necessity existed to justify the drawing complained of. Gentlemen, in their arguments, had alluded to some observations that had fallen from him on other occasions expressive of his opinion, that there had been corruption in that department. This opinion he still entertained. He suggested that some irregularities had taken place as to the money appropriated to the Sinking Fund. This might be the fact, and his suspicions were sufficiently urgent to warrant him in suggesting that it might be possible. At the close of 1792, he stated there was a balance of cash in the Treasury of $2,331,182, and the bonds due in the course of the present year would produce a sum of about $2,269,000. Yet a proposition was made in the House, predicated on a total want of money in the Treasury, to borrow $800,000 in addition to the $400,000 already borrowed of the bank.

[Here Mr. Boudinot interrupted the member, as being out of order. The Chairman, conceiving Mr. Mercer's remarks to be introductory to, and connected with the observations he intended to make on the resolution, declared him in order.]

Mr. Mercer proceeded to show, by sundry statements and calculations, that there was no necessity for this loan of $800,000. The House, he said, to discharge their duty, should be satisfied how the money appropriated was applied, before they consented to repeated additional appropriations. When calls for information had been made by the House, with a view to comply with this their indispensable duty, the Secretary had thought it sufficient to balance money actually received, by calculations of sums that would probably be wanted agreeably to appropriations. Were dollars, he asked, to be balanced by absolute appropriations? Can things certain be balanced by things uncertain? Actual expenditure would alone balance actual receipt. Appropriations founded only on uncertain calculations could not show the money actually laid out. He adverted to some calculations made to ascertain the probable expenses of the War Department.

[Here the member was again called to order, and was declared out of order by the Chairman.]

Mr. M. confined his observations more immediately to the resolution before the committee. It had been said, that the interest paid was paid out of moneys that were to be drawn to this country, and were replaced here by funds from the domestic resources originally appropriated for that object, and that the dead letter of the law, if any part of it, had alone been violated. He contended there had been an essential violation.

The sums drawn for and appropriated to reduce the public debt, were not applied to that purpose; the domestic resources appropriated to that object, never were exhausted. If this is the case, conclusions surely unfavorable to that officer must naturally follow.

He proceeded to make some remarks on the question, whether the Secretary had acted under instructions from the President. It was disagreeable, he premised, to criminate the character of any officer. He bore a great respect for the President, for his virtues, talents, and services, but however grating to his feelings it might be to find fault with any part of his conduct in this matter, he was unable to discharge his duty under his present impressions, unless he avowed that he conceived that officer had violated the law, though he allowed, without intention, by not inquiring into the subject, while transacting, as it was his duty to do. He must declare that he saw no proof that the Secretary had acted under the President's instructions. On the contrary, he saw the reverse, there was even no presumptive proof of the fact. The House has called for information as to the extent of the authority delegated by the President to the Secretary. Either the Secretary has produced the proof of this authority, or he has not complied with the order of the House; it does appear that he has gone beyond it in making the drafts complained of. The President directed that the proceeds of the loan be immediately applied to pay the French; yet a great portion of that money was brought over here. It was said that he might have brought the whole here if he chose and paid it to the French here. This argument goes on the presumption that the President might do wrong without incurring blame. But the President expressly directed it to be paid immediately to France; and the House had no right to presume that he did direct the money to be drawn here, when proof to the contrary appears. Upon the whole, he concluded that the law had been broken in letter and substance, and that the Secretary had acted without proper instructions from the President.

Mr. Livermore observed, that the charge against the Treasury Department was at first well calculated to beget serious alarm. When misapplications of the public money are sounded in the public ear, all feel interested, knowing, that what affects the public purse, must in a degree affect the purses of each private individual. In the present stage of the subject, he was happy in being able to felicitate himself and his fellow-citizens, that even should the whole of the charges contained in the resolutions be proved, it would not appear that they had lost a farthing by the conduct so loudly complained of. What is the charge? That the Secretary has paid an interest that was justly due; why then, he presumed we should not have it again to pay. If the Secretary has paid what was due, what then is the complaint? It was surely not intended that it should not have been paid. This was not the intention of Congress; for they passed an act providing funds for its payment. The Secretary was then right to pay it. But, it is said, he paid with the wrong money. He saw no harm in not paying it with the very dollars appropriated, and approved of the operation, which saved drawing with the one hand and remitting with the other; in this there was no crime committed, no loss incurred. It appears, on the contrary, that something was gained by it. So far, then, he was clear, no law had been violated, nor was any rule of propriety departed from. He then touched upon the Secretary's disputed right to draw. He contended, that he had that right. The loans were obtained under the joint authority of the two acts. It was said that more than two millions, the amount appropriated for the Sinking Fund, were drawn over; but, he insisted, he might have drawn the other twelve millions, if it had been for the public interest so to do. The French wished to be paid here, and it being no loss, but rather a profit, to comply with their wish, where was the harm in so doing? If any public loss had been incurred owing to these drafts, then blame would lie. He concluded, by expressing his hearty approbation of the conduct of the officer who is criminated by the resolutions, and declared it as his firm intention to give them his negative.

Mr. Hillhouse argued, that the interest paid, was not paid out of the $2,000,000 loan, and that the drafts were made agreeably to the directions of the President. He showed this by the documents which had been already referred to. He put in a clear point of view the propriety of avoiding the expense and risk of drafts and correspondent remittances, and concluded by giving his approbation to the conduct of the Secretary in the transactions complained of, and by expressing it as his firm belief that a majority of the committee, from the evidence before them, would undoubtedly be of opinion that the charges brought forward are unfounded.

Mr. Sedgwick rose to correct a mistake of Mr. Mercer's. The gentleman had asserted, that the Secretary had drawn on Europe, before the loan, obtained by the commissioners under the old Government, was ratified. This was not the case. The loan had been ratified in pursuance of the provisions of the act authorizing it. The President in his Speech, December 8, 1790, says, "that agreeably to the powers vested in him at the last session, the loans in Holland had been completed."

By existing acts of the Legislature, and from express communications from the Secretary of the Treasury, it appears, that all the moneys borrowed were deemed borrowed under the joint authority of both acts, and not to be solely appropriated for the payment of the foreign debt.

Mr. Mercer explained, that he had said, that the Secretary had drawn from the loan obtained under the authority of the old Government, before said loan was legalized by law. If the Legislature had the right to legalize it, they had the right to reject it.

Mr. Lee next rose. He observed that as he found himself under the necessity of differing from his friend who had moved the resolution, with whom he generally agreed in opinion, and was accustomed to act, he begged the attention of the committee for a few minutes. To determine whether the Secretary of the Treasury had acted legally, it was necessary to examine whether the authority from the President and his subsequent instructions authorized him to consolidate the loans under the acts of the 4th and 12th August, 1790.

On this question Mr. L. observed, that there seemed to be no objection to such a construction, except that which arose from the difference of interest allowed by those acts; that the first loan was commenced without any regular authority by a company in Amsterdam; that it received its authenticity from the acceptance of the Secretary of the Treasury. The interest and douceurs on this loan amounted to more than an interest of five per cent., which was the only premium contemplated by the act of the 12th of August. It could consequently be accepted only under the act of the 4th of August, which gave no limitation to the interest which was to be allowed. The money seemed therefore solely applicable to the payment of the foreign debt. From his report of the 24th of February, 1791, the Secretary himself seemed to have had this impression; Congress seemed also to have this impression as on the 3d of March following they passed an act authorizing the application of this loan to the object of the act of the 12th of August, 1790. After the 3d of March, 1791, therefore, the Secretary of the Treasury had a right to bring this money to America for the purposes of the Sinking Fund. The interest of the foreign debt becoming due, for which domestic revenues were pledged, he thought it prudent to pay that interest out of this loan, relying on the domestic revenues to replace it for the purposes of the Sinking Fund. This was a mode of bringing the money here, and he was not limited in his discretion as to the mode; and therefore had a right to follow that which appeared to him most advantageous. The paying of the foreign interest out of this loan was made after the 3d of March, 1791.

Mr. L. had no doubt as to the legality of all the proceedings relative to moneys drawn to this country subsequent to the third of March, 1791; even the moneys borrowed for the foreign debt, because a higher interest than five per cent. was stipulated for, on any of the subsequent loans, and because the President, in his instructions to the Secretary, leaves the mode of paying the foreign debt to his discretion. If he judged it for the advantage of the United States to bring this money, in the first place, to America, the legality of such a measure cannot be questioned, though the economy and wisdom of it may not be admitted. On this point, Mr. L. acknowledged, that he had not time to examine minutely all the statements and reports of the Secretary to judge of those exigencies which induced the drawing of all the money which had been drawn to America.

Whether it had been consistent or not with the interest of the United States, Mr. L. was of opinion, that the Secretary had legally a right to bring all the money he had drawn for to America, except what was drawn prior to the third of March, 1791. This money was drawn out of the first loan; it was drawn, as declared, for the Sinking Fund; the first loan, for the reasons before stated, could not be applied, and consequently, till the act of the 3d of March, 1791, this money could not be legally drawn for the Sinking Fund. Perhaps this act caused the irregularity of this proceeding.

But is not the Secretary of the Treasury subject to blame? Mr. L. observed, he thought he was not altogether free from it. At the meeting of Congress on the 8th day of December, 1790, the President in his Speech informed both Houses, that the first loan had been accepted, and that the Secretary of the Treasury had directions to lay the particulars before them. But what did he do? On the 15th of December following, he began to draw money on account of this loan to America, for the Sinking Fund; though from his report on the 24th of February, 1791, he appears to have had a doubt as to the legality of this proceeding. He delayed giving information, in conformity to the President's Speech, till a few days before the dissolution of Congress. This conduct, Mr. L. said, seemed to argue a distrust of the Legislative Councils. Mr. L. dilated on the necessity of the purest and most confidential communication between the Secretary of the Treasury and the Legislature, and said, though he could not agree to the resolution then under consideration, there was one, subsequent to it, relating to this point, which he was sorry to find himself under the necessity of voting for.

Mr. Boudinot considered it as the duty of the committee in the discussion of the charges brought forward to confine themselves strictly to the points in question. The present examination differed from ordinary Legislative business. Specific charges are brought forward against a highly responsible officer; the facts brought forward to support those charges should be understood and considered, to form a right judgment on them. The Secretary is charged with having violated a law, by paying the interest due on a loan out of the principal of that loan. He went into some statements and calculations to show that the money paid on account of foreign loans, as stated in official documents, could not have been paid on account of interest of the late loans, from the disproportion of the sums.

He need say nothing more, he conceived, to show that the first charge in the resolution immediately before the committee is unfounded. If what he said was not sufficient to disprove it, he asked where is the evidence to support it?

He next turned to the second charge in the resolution, viz: that the Secretary had made the drafts complained of without the President's instructions. Here he noticed a mistake some gentlemen had fallen into, when speaking of the call of the House for information. This was a request to the President, and not an order to the Secretary. From the information communicated in consequence of this call, it did not appear that the Secretary had acted without, or contrary to instructions, and he insisted, that he ought to be presumed innocent till he was proved guilty.

He argued that the authority given to the President in the subject put it in his power to draw the whole fourteen millions to this country, if he thought fit; it could not, therefore, he contended, be insisted, that the amount of the drafts had passed the limits of the authority given. It is not denied, he proceeded, that there was a right to draw for the two millions appropriated for the reduction of the public debt. Well, it has appeared, on a certain occasion to the House, that our Minister in France negotiated a contract with the National Assembly, or their officers, for the payment of $800,000 of the debt due them, here; then certainly, the exigency of the case required that this sum should be drawn here for the purchase of provisions for St. Domingo, in which this payment was to be made. Here then was a positive necessity of drawing for $2,800,000 and as a discretionary power in the subject had been left to the Executive, they might have found it advisable, perhaps, under an expectation of additional payments in the same manner to have drawn over as much more as they might have thought prudent.

He adverted to the application of the Secretary to the Legislature to declare whether the loan obtained, for an interest of five per cent., exclusive of douceurs, might be considered as borrowed under authority of the $2,000,000 act. It was his (Mr. Boudinot's) opinion at the time, that no explanatory law was necessary; and that the Executive had power to construe the act in that sense. This was also the Secretary's opinion, and in consequence of that opinion he had drawn bills. He thought it however right to apply to the House and have every doubt removed, and the Legislature sanctioned his construction of the law.

It had been said, that if the Legislature had a right to confirm, they also had a right to reject the construction put upon the law by the Executive. This, he conceived, they would not have been warranted in doing, after a contract agreeably to that construction had been made; such a proceeding must have involved a breach of contract.

It had been repeatedly asserted and strenuously insisted on, that the Legislature were totally in the dark, as to the drafts from Europe. To disprove this assertion, he read several items from sundry reports of the Secretary, where sums received on account of loans are specified. It had also been said, that there was no evidence that any part of the loan was applied to or intended for the purchase of the public debt.

This also appears unfounded, from a note dated 25th of August, 1790, laid before the Trustees for purchasing the public debt, which expressly mentions, that a loan had been negotiated, part of which was destined for the purchase of the public debt, and that some points relative thereto were before the President for his approbation. This also showed that the President had knowledge of such intentions. His Speech, and the Report of the Secretary, in consequence of part of that Speech, which had been so repeatedly referred to, also unequivocally prove this point.

He recapitulated the heads of his arguments, and concluded, that if nothing further could be brought in support of the charges now before the committee, they should have his decided negative.

Mr. Madison.—He wished not, he said, to waste a moment of the small portion of time left, by regretting its insufficiency for a full discussion of the subject before the committee. But he thought it due to truth, and to the honorable and independent motives of his colleague (Mr. Giles) in proposing the resolutions, to remark, that the lateness of the day to which they had been postponed did not justify the strictures which had been made on it. If the delay was not to be considered as unavoidable, some blame, at least, would fall elsewhere. The inquiries in which the whole matter originated, had been moved by his colleague, and passed the House some weeks ago. The reports in answer to these inquiries had not been finally made and printed a single day before the present resolutions were submitted to the House. He admitted that it might have been impracticable to report the information called for, as early as was desired by the House. He was sensible of the anxiety that would be naturally felt by the officer called upon, to present every consideration that might place his conduct in the most favorable point of view; yet, with all these allowances, it was impossible to deny that the reports contained things which did not belong to them, and therefore consumed time which, belonged to the period for discussion. He would mention one instance on which there could not possibly be a difference of opinion, viz: the vindication, formally undertaken by the Secretary, of the policy of borrowing money abroad. Whether his policy was right or wrong, the Legislature had themselves decided in favor of it; and it was the duty of the Secretary, in complying with the orders of the House, to inform the House how the law had been executed—not why it had been made; to explain his own conduct,—not to justify that of the Legislature.

It had been asked why the call for information had not been sooner made? The answer was obvious and simple. It was not sooner perceived by the House, that there was such a necessity for it. The want of information was first suggested by the bill for paying $2,000,000 to the Bank, although $200,000 only were immediately due, and for authorizing another foreign loan to the amount of $2,000,000. From the dawn of light thrown by some circumstances incident to the occasion on the darkness in which the House had remained, proceeded those doubts and inquiries which had led to the information now possessed. His colleague had great merit in having brought about this development. He had rendered a service highly valuable to the Legislature, and no less important and acceptable to the public. One good effect of the information had been, that it prevented the passage of the bill for borrowing $2,000,000 as an anticipated payment to the Bank. The bill had dropped from the hand of its patron with the first light that broke in upon the House. What other measures would have been prevented or varied, if a like knowledge of our funds and finances had been sooner obtained, was matter of serious consideration.

Another consequence of the reports, taken together, was, that the face of them presented to his colleague an evidence of the charges contained in the resolutions. Whether, at so late a day, it was best to leave the subject as exhibited by the various documents in print, for the examination and opinion of the public, or to press it on the consideration of the House, was a point which every member had a right to decide for himself. His colleague had viewed the positions stated in his motion as too important to be suspended, and as supported by such clear and authentic proofs, that a small portion of time would suffice for the subject. Under this impression, what was his right became his duty; and he had discharged it by offering his resolutions to the House.

As the House had refused to commit the two introductory resolutions, which established the rule of judgment to be applied to the case, and the last also, which declared the inference to be drawn, the task of the committee was limited to a simple inquiry into the facts stated. They were to make out and report a special verdict of these, and leave it to the House to pronounce the proper judgment arising from them.

The resolution immediately before the committee imported, "that the Secretary of the Treasury had violated the law passed on the 4th of August, 1790, making appropriations of certain moneys," first, "by applying a certain portion of the principal borrowed to the payment of interest on that principal;" secondly, "by drawing part of the same moneys into the United States, without the instruction of the President."

The questions here are questions of fact; and whatever quality may be attached by different gentlemen to the several facts, it would seem as if the facts themselves are too clearly supported by the Reports of the Secretary, and the documents attending them, to be denied or controverted.

The law of August 4, 1790, authorized the President to cause to be borrowed $12,000,000, to be applied to the Foreign Debt of the United States. A subsequent law of August 12, 1790, authorized another loan of $2,000,000, to be applied to the Domestic Debt of the United States. A power to make these loans was delegated, on the 28th of August, 1790, to the Secretary, by a general commission, in the usual form, referring to the several acts above mentioned, but without any further discrimination of the loans to be made. As the law, however, for applying loans to the foreign object was prior in date, the presumption would rather be that it was to have a priority of execution; that the first money borrowed was to belong to the first object provided for. It was unnecessary, however, to dwell on this consideration, because the President had removed all uncertainty by the precise explanations and instructions which accompanied the power to the Secretary, and which ought, in truth, to be deemed a part of the commission. The instruction having been more than once read to the committee, he would content himself with referring to it.

The part referred to is in the following words:

"I do hereby make known to you on the execution of the said trust, you are to observe and follow the orders and directions following, viz: Except where otherwise especially directed by me, you shall employ in the negotiation of any loan or loans which may be made in any foreign country, William Short, Esq.; you shall borrow, or cause to be borrowed, on the best terms which shall be found practicable, and within the limitations prescribed by law as to time of repayment and rate of interest, such sum or sums as shall be sufficient to discharge, as well all instalments or parts of the principal of the foreign debt, which are now due, or shall become payable to the end of the year 1791, as all interest and arrears of interest which now are, or shall become due, in respect to the said debt, to the same end of the year 1791. And you shall apply, or cause to be applied, the moneys which shall be so borrowed, with all convenient despatch, to the payment of the said instalments, and parts of the principal and interest, and arrears of interest of the said debt. You shall not extend the amount of the loan which you shall make, or cause to be made, beyond the sum which shall be necessary for completing such payment, unless it can be done upon terms more advantageous to the United States, than those upon which the residue of the said debt shall stand or be. But if the said residue, or any part of the same, can be paid off by new loans, upon terms of advantage to the United States, you shall cause such further loans as may be requisite to be made, and the proceeds thereof to be applied accordingly. And for carrying into effect the objects and purposes aforesaid, I do hereby further empower you to make, or cause to be made, with whomsoever it may concern, such contract or contracts, being of a nature relative thereto, as shall be found needful and conducive to the interest of the United States."

By this formal act, issued along with the commission to the Secretary, the President designated the object to which the loans to be made were to be applied; and by declaring the object to be that provided for by the act of August 4, 1790, he expressly placed the loan under the authority and provision of that act; so that the moment the money should be borrowed, it was to stand legally appropriated to its specified object—as much as if another law authorizing another loan for another purpose, had not existed.

This arrangement of the President was the more proper, not only because provision for the payment of the foreign debt had been the primary object of the Legislature, and the payment of the French debt the anxious wish of their constituents, but because payments to France were no longer matter of option, but of strict and positive obligation on the United States. In proof of this, he stated that the debt of France, calculated to the end of 1791, and computing the livre at 5 4-10 to a dollar, amounted to $4,814,814, whilst the payments actually made, computing the florin at 2-1/2 to a dollar, amounted to more than $3,372,717, leaving, as a balance, at the end of 1791, $1,442,097. Adding to this balance the instalments due for 1792, amounting to $638,888, there were to be paid within that year $2,080,985. The entire payments, however, composed of $656,500 in Europe, and $726,000 put to the account of St. Domingo, (although $444,263, 83 were actually paid,) amounted to $1,382,500, leaving due at the end of 1792, a balance of $698,485.

Here Mr. M. adverted to and read a paragraph in the Report of the Secretary, page 16, where in allusion to the measure of drawing bills in the latter part of 1792, he says: "I feel myself the more at liberty to do it, because it did not interfere with a complete fulfilment of the public engagements in regard to the foreign debt. It could be done consistently with a full reimbursement of all arrears and instalments which had accrued on account of that debt."

Mr. M. observed, that, as he could not reconcile this paragraph with the calculations which he had stated, and which were drawn from official documents, he must regard it as an unquestionable error, produced by some hasty view of the subject.

Returning to the commission, Mr. M. repeated that all the money which that instrument, defined and qualified by the instruction annexed to it, authorized the Secretary to borrow, was actually and specifically appropriated to the payment of the foreign debt, and under circumstances particularly urgent, in relation to a part of it.

In what manner had this trust been carried into execution? It was to be observed, with regret, that, on the very day on which the commission and instruction issued from the President, the Secretary commenced his arrangement for diverting part of the loan, accepted and ratified by virtue of his commission, to a purpose different from that specified and required by his instruction. That a fact of so extraordinary a complexion might be grounded on the most unexceptionable proof, Mr. M. said he should take the liberty of supporting it by the authority of the Secretary himself. Here he read from the Secretary's letter, dated August 28, 1790, to the Dutch houses from whom the loan had been accepted, the following passages, viz:

"I should also wish, for particular reasons, that the business may be so regulated as to give it the form of two loans—one for two millions under the first act, and the other for one million under the second. But neither about this am I so solicitous as to be willing that it should constitute an embarrassment."

"I destine a million and a half of this sum as a payment to France, under the direction of Mr. Short, our Chargé d'Affaires at that Court, whose orders for that purpose you will please to follow."

The aspect here presented by a comparison of the several documents, was singular and remarkable. The subordinate officer appeared in direct opposition to the Chief Magistrate. The agent was seen overruling, by his own orders, the orders of his principal. The language of the President was, "By virtue of the power vested in me by law, I destine the money to be borrowed to the discharge of the instalments and interest of the foreign debt." The language of the Secretary was: "I destine a part of the money only to that purpose, and a part to be brought to the United States for other purposes." He left every member to make his own reflections on the subject. He would only observe, in general, that it demonstrated the truth asserted in the proposition, that the Secretary had violated both the law of August 4, 1790, and the instruction of the President relating to it.

He then proceeded to a more distinct view of the two points particularly stated in the resolution. The first was, "That a certain portion of the principal borrowed under the act of August 4, 1790, had been applied to the payment of the interest falling due on that principal." As the fact would not, he presumed, be denied, he forebore to quote that part of the documents which admitted and authenticated it. He would, however, premise to any observations on it, a cursory view of the nature of appropriations.

It was unnecessary to repeat the emphatic remarks on this subject, which had fallen from the member from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Findlay.) It was sufficiently understood. He concluded that appropriations of money were of a high and sacred character; that they were the great bulwark which our constitution had carefully and jealously established against Executive usurpations. He meant only to take notice of the different plans into which appropriations might be moulded, and of the particular operation which ought to be given to them.

One of the plans was that of appropriating specified funds to specified objects, in which the supposed certainty of the funds was adjusted to the supposed importance of the objects.

The other plan formed all the branches of revenue into an aggregate fund, on which the several objects should have a priority of claim according to their superiority of importance. It was evident that in both these cases, the Legislature alone possessed the competent authority. The exclusive right of that department of the Government to make the proper regulations, was the basis of the utility and efficacy of appropriations.

There was a third question incident to the doctrine of appropriations, viz: Whether, under specific appropriations, such as had been adopted by Congress, the Executive authority could, without special permission of the law, apply the excess of one fund to the aid of a deficient one, or borrow from one fund for the object of another. On this question, there might perhaps be a difference of opinion. He would only remark, that, admitting such a discretion to be implied in the trust of executing the laws, it would still be requisite that the due sanction of the Executive should be given, that a regular account should be kept between the different funds, and that all advances from one to the other should be replaced as soon as possible. This was equally necessary to the preservation of order in the public finances, and to a proper respect for the authority of the laws.

In the present case, it did not appear that the moneys taken at different times from the loans designated by the President, and thereby placed under the appropriation of the act of August 4, 1790, to the foreign debt, had ever been replaced. It did not appear that any such replacement was regularly planned or provided for. It was particularly worthy of observation, moreover, that the only use within the United States for which any loan in Europe could be assigned, was that of the Sinking Fund; that the Trustees of this fund had never been even informed of the drafts; that if the moneys drawn had been carried to the Sinking Fund, the limited sum of $2,000,000 would have been exceeded; and that the statements and accounts had, in fact, been so wound up, as mentioned by the Secretary, that not a single dollar of the money laid out in purchasing the public debt had been charged on loans drawn into the United States, although such was the only purpose to which they were legally applicable, and such the principal reason assigned for making the drafts.

He did not go into a particular proof that the sum drawn into the United States, after subtracting the whole sum placed to a foreign account, exceeded the sum of $2,000,000, because the fact had been conceded on the other side, particularly by the statement of the member from Connecticut, (Mr. Hillhouse.)

Thus it appeared clearly, in confirmation of the first point, that the application of a certain portion of the principal borrowed in Europe, to payment of the interest, was not a mere transposition of moneys, to prevent the sending them backwards or forwards, nor an advance of money from an overflowing fund in favor of a deficient one; but an absolute diversion of appropriated money, and consequently a violation of the law making the appropriation.

The second point in the resolution related to the drawing of moneys into the United States without the instruction of the President. This point had been fully established by the documents and explanations applied to the first. They had done more: they had demonstrated that the instructions of the President, which dedicated the loans to be made under his commission to a foreign object, were an express prohibition of drafts for any domestic object. It was sufficient, therefore, to refer to the instructions of the President, and to the contradictory steps taken by the Secretary. Two attempts had been made to elude the force of these official proofs. The first appealed to the President's Speech at the opening of the session in 1790; to the Report of the Secretary, made in consequence of it, to the House; and to the supplementary act of Congress passed in conformity to the Report.

Had the circumstances involved in this transaction been attended to by those who seemed to rely on it, Mr. M. was persuaded that a reference to it would never have been made by gentlemen on that side. As they had thought fit, however, to draw arguments from that source, it was proper to give an answer to them; and the best answer would be a naked statement of facts.

The instruction of the President to the Secretary was given, as has been seen, on the 28th of August, 1790. The letter of the Secretary contravening this instruction, was dated, as has also been seen, on the same 28th day of August, 1790. The actual drawing of bills by the Secretary commenced the 15th of December, 1790. The law now pleaded in justification of the conduct of the Secretary, passed on the 3d of March, 1791.

There are other facts material to a correct and full view of the subject. The Speech of the President was delivered on the 8th of December, 1790. It briefly informed the two Houses that "a loan of 3,000,000 of florins, towards which some provisional measures had previously taken place, had been completed in Holland," and "that the Secretary of the Treasury had discretion to communicate such further particulars as might be requisite for more precise information." The consequent Report of the Secretary, recommending the provision in the supplementary act, was not received till the 25th of February, 1791—six days only before the constitutional dissolution of the House. In the interval between the Speech of the President and the Secretary's Report, he had proceeded to draw bills to the amount of 793,392 florins. His report, notwithstanding what had been said of it, contained not a word from which it could be known that a single florin had been actually drawn over to the United States.

The other attempt to elude the evidence before the committee, recoiled with equal force on the gentlemen who had hazarded it. In the report lately made by the trustees of the Sinking Fund, is a statement laid before them by the Secretary, in which it is noted "that the acceptance of the loan of 3,000,000 of florins, and the application of one-third of it to the purpose of that fund, was under the consideration of the President." From this fact, it had been inferred, not only that the Secretary had withheld no proper information from the Trustees, but that the result of the President's deliberations on the subject had varied the purpose signified by his first instructions to the Secretary.

It happened, however, most unfortunately for the gentlemen who exulted in this argument, that they had entirely overlooked the dates of the two papers. The paper laid before the Trustees, and alleged to have explained the final purpose of the President, was dated on the 25th of August, 1790. The paper relied on by the other side, as the final, as well as the most formal, designation of the will of the President, was dated the 28th of August, 1790. The gentlemen, therefore, instead of the inference they had made, should have reversed their premises, and joined with their opponents in concluding that the President was led by a consideration of the subject, not to do what the Secretary, in his note to the Trustees, seemed to anticipate, but what had been evinced by the President's own act of posterior date.

The second point, then, as well as the first, rests on the most solid proofs, taken from a collective view of authentic documents.

Much has been said on the necessity of sometimes departing from the strictness of legal appropriations, as a plea for any freedoms that may have been taken with them by the Secretary. He would not deny that there might be emergencies, in the course of human affairs, of so extraordinary and pressing a nature, as to absolve the Executive from an inflexible conformity to the injunctions of the law. It was, nevertheless, as essential to remember, as it was obvious to remark, that in all such cases, the necessity should be palpable; that the Executive sanction should flow from the supreme source; and that the first opportunity should be seized for communicating to the Legislature the measures pursued, with the reasons explaining the necessity of them. This early communication was equally enforced by prudence and by duty. It was the best evidence of the motives for assuming the extraordinary power; it was a respect manifestly due to the Legislative authority; and it was more particularly indispensable, as that alone would enable the Legislature, by a provident amendment of the law, to accommodate it to like emergencies in future.

In the proceedings falling under the present inquiry, no necessity appeared for the liberties which had been taken, the money appropriated in Europe being more wanted there than at home. It appeared that the instructions of the Supreme Executive, instead of warranting those liberties, had precluded them; nor had the proper explanations been disclosed in due time to the Legislature. To place the subject in a more distinct point of view, it was proper to advert to the precise authorities and duties of the Secretary, as his office is defined by the act establishing the Treasury Department. For this purpose, Mr. M. read the second section of that act, which is in the words following:

"That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to digest and prepare plans for the improvement and management of the revenue, and for the support of public credit; to prepare and report estimates of the public revenue and the public expenditures; to superintend the collection of the revenue, to decide on the forms of keeping and stating accounts and making returns, and to grant, under the limitations herein established, or to be hereafter provided, all warrants for moneys to be issued from the Treasury, in pursuance of appropriations by law; to execute such services relative to the sale of the lands belonging to the United States as may be by law required of him; to make report and give information to either branch of the Legislature, in person or in writing, (as he may be required,) respecting all matters referred to him by the Senate or House of Representatives, or which shall appertain to his office; and generally to perform all such services relative to the finances as he shall be directed to perform."

This establishment of the office evidently had no reference beyond the case of superintending the regular and ordinary collection of the revenue, and granting warrants for moneys issued from the Treasury, in pursuance of appropriations by law. The case of loans, as an occasional and extraordinary resource, was left to be provided for by particular laws for the purpose. The authority, with respect to the loans in question, was accordingly committed to the President, in order to secure for so special a trust, the highest responsibility to be found in the Government. And when it was considered that the whole sum contemplated was no less than fourteen millions of dollars, and when the latitude as to the terms and contracts was combined with the vastness of the sum, it might well be questioned whether so great a power would have been delegated to any man in whom the Legislature and the people of America had less confidence than they so justly reposed in the existing Chief Magistrate, and whether an equal power will ever be committed to a successor. This distinction between the case of ordinary revenue and that of loans is not only consonant to the actual policy of our laws, but is founded in obvious and solid considerations. In the collection and disbursement of the ordinary revenues arising from taxation, the business flows in official channels, is subject in every stage to official checks, and the money, being in constant influx and efflux, nowhere accumulates in immense sums. The case of loans is, in all these respects, different. In settling the terms and arranging the negotiations, there is always an important discretion involved. When the loans are foreign, as well as great, regulations concerning the bills of exchange form another occasion where great latitude is implied in the trust; whilst the magnitude of the sums, falling under the same direction at the same moment, present a further and material variance between the two cases. The tendency of these observations is to show that, as the permanent law establishing the Treasury Department does not extend the authority of the Secretary to the case of loans and as the law authorizing loans exacts, for special reasons, a responsibility from the President himself, the authority of the Secretary, in executing the loans, and the appropriation of them, must be derived from the President; and, consequently, where that authority fails, there can be no resort to the law establishing the department, much less to any general discretion incident to his official character. It is evident that the President, although no doubt guided by the most proper considerations in employing the agency of the Secretary of the Treasury in the business of the loans, might, if he had judged fit, have substituted the agency of another; and that, whatever agency he might prefer, his own instructions would always regulate the extent and exercise of the power conferred. The want of any apparent authority from the President had led several gentlemen to insist on presumed authorities, superseding the instructions joined with the commission to the Secretary. But here, again, the fair inference was to be reversed. A communication of the authorities given by the President to the Secretary, as to the application of the foreign loans, had been expressly requested by the vote of the House. It was not to be supposed that the Secretary, if he had received further authorities or instructions, would have failed to produce them, or to refer to them, in the justification of his conduct. Far less could it be presumed that the President, if he had given any superseding authorities or instructions, would not have caused them to be communicated to the House, or that he would have suffered a partial communication to mislead the House into an error as to so important a fact. The President was the last man in the world to whom any measure whatever of a deceptive tendency could be credibly attributed.

Thus far (said Mr. M.) his observations had departed as little as possible from the question in its strictest sense. He should now avail himself of the opportunity afforded by the terms of the last clause, which spoke of drafts generally, to take a more particular notice of those recently made; in doing which, he considered himself safe within the Rules of the House, which were so rigorously enforced against the affirmative side of the question. The whole amount of foreign loans transferred directly or indirectly to the United States appeared from the several statements to be about $3,000,000. The amount of the direct drafts was $2,304,769 13. Of the drafts made since the 16th of April, 1792, and sold by the bank, the proceeds now in the bank, or payable into it, before the 1st of April next, amount to $1,220,476 01. Of this sum $510,000 have been drawn in the course of the present session in Congress. With respect to the times and the amount of these drafts, hitherto absolutely unknown to the Legislature, because the account of them had remained in the books of the bank without ever appearing in the books of the Treasurer, Mr. M. confessed that he had found no explanations that were satisfactory to him. He had looked through all the reports and all the communications before the House, without discovering either that they had been made by the authority or with the knowledge of the President, or had been required for, or applied to the purchase of, the public debt, or had been ever communicated to the Trustees of the Sinking Fund, who had the direction of such purchases, or that they were the effect of any necessity that could justify them. And if there was no evident necessity for the proceeding, it was the more to be lamented that, whilst we were every where sympathizing with our allies in their arduous struggles for liberty, and echoing, from every part of the Union, our congratulations and good wishes, the pecuniary succors so critically necessary to their cause, and the most substantial proof of the sincerity of our professions, should be silently withdrawn across the Atlantic from the object for which they were intended—succors, too, which were not merely a tribute of gratitude, of generosity, or of benevolent zeal for the triumph of liberty, but a debt moreover of strict and positive obligation, for value acknowledged and received. In contemplating the subject in this point of view, he felt a pain which he could not easily express, and to which, he persuaded himself, the breast of no other member could be a stranger. Laying aside, however, all these unfavorable considerations, the important question still remained, why the Legislature had been uninformed of the moneys so unexpectedly drawn into the bank, and to so very great an amount? If the drafts had received every requisite sanction, if they had been produced by the most justifiable causes, the existence of $1,220,476, in a situation so different from what had been contemplated, was a fact which the Representatives of the people had a right to know, which it was important to them and their constituents that they should know, and which it was the indispensable duty of the officer charged with it to have made known. This omission was the more remarkable when considered in relation to the measure above mentioned, of paying off at once the whole sum of $2,000,000, payable to the bank by instalments in ten years. A bill for this purpose had been introduced, and was on its passage; the object of it had been patronized by a report of the Secretary not long since made. In one of his last reports he expressly states, among the inducements to such extensive drafts of money from Europe, that they were made "with an eye to placing within the reach of the Legislature" the means necessary for this object. Was it not extraordinary, was it not unaccountable, that so important a measure should be recommended, and be actually introduced, and that money otherwise appropriated in Europe should be transferred to this country and deposited in the bank, in order that it might be within the reach of being applied by the Legislature to that measure, and yet that no disclosure should be made to the Legislature of that fact that the money was so drawn and lay at the bank, within their reach, to be so applied? If any thing could heighten astonishment on this occasion, it must be the reason assigned by the Secretary for any obscurity that might have hung over our finances—"that, till the last resolutions, no call had been made on the department which rendered it proper to exhibit a general view of the public moneys and funds, or to show the amount and situation of such as were unapplied." Mr. M. would not decide that the Legislature was free from blame in not using more full and efficacious means of obtaining such information as would have removed all obscurity. But, whatever degree of blame might fall on them, it never could be admitted that their calls on the department had furnished no proper occasion for exhibiting a full view of the public finances. He referred generally to the various resolutions, which, without the least force of construction, would have extended to every proper article of information. He reminded the committee of the latitude of reports under certain other orders of the House, and asked whether less freedom of construction was to be allowed when information was to be given, than when power or discretion was to be exercised? But independently of this view of the matter, Mr. M. held it to be clear and palpable that the very situation of the money afforded an occasion which rendered it proper that the House should be informed of it. If a liberty could be taken of removing money from Europe, where it stood appropriated by law, to this country, where there was no legal object that required it, and with an eye, as was stated, to an object to which no money was applicable, without the authority of the Legislature, how could it possibly be supposed improper to take the further liberty of communicating what was done to the Legislature? He concluded with recurring to the particular form in which the subject presented itself to the committee, and repeating that, whatever quality might be attached to the facts charged, or however improper it might be thought by some to proceed in haste to any affirmative decision on them, it appeared irreconcilable with the evidence which had been produced, to decide, by a negative vote, against the truth of the facts.

Mr. Ames prefaced his remarks on the subject before the committee by some observations on the nature of the charges brought forward. He was happy that they were determinate, and conceived that the defence could be crowded in a nutshell. As to the first charge in the resolution immediately before the committee, he had seen no proof in support of it brought forward. It is founded only on assertion, and he conceived that contra-assertion was sufficient to meet it. No authority, it was said, was given to the Secretary to obtain the loan under the blended authority of both acts. This is not one of the charges included in the resolutions before the committee, and therefore this is not the time to answer it. However, if this were fact, nothing criminal could in consequence be imputed; and, since the purposes of both laws were carried into execution, there could be no ground for saying that either was violated. He said much on the impracticability of the line of conduct which some gentlemen appeared to think ought to have been followed by the Secretary. It was impossible to keep different funds, differently appropriated, so inviolably separate as that one might not be used for the object of the other; all was right, he conceived, provided what was taken was to be replaced. He was also of opinion that the overflowing of one fund could be applied to make up the deficiency of another; and that all that is necessary is to give priority to the appropriation. The money paid in Europe for interest on the loan was said to have been improperly applied, because the fund appropriated for the purpose was here. He insisted that that money was absolutely represented here by an equal sum: and he contended that, though the interest was not paid in the identical coin appropriated, yet, by allowing a very reasonable latitude of expression, it could be said that the interest was paid with the money appropriated, for the applicability of the sums there depended on the existence of the fund here. He next turned to the second charge in the resolution; and, after showing that the natural presumption was, that the Secretary either was instructed or had a discretionary power, he then vindicated his conduct in respect to the drafts of money to this country. He did honor to the motives of the gentlemen who had instituted the inquiry, and concluded an elegant speech, by a contrasted picture of our former and present situation as a country, dwelling upon the importance of preserving harmony, and insisting on the danger of giving rise to suspicions against a highly responsible officer, and of bringing forward charges not to be supported by proof.

Mr. Findlay.—If my hopes respecting the Government have not been equally elevated with those of the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Ames,) neither are my apprehensions so much depressed with fears. But I hope I am equally anxious for the stability and prosperity of the Government; and though we differ in opinion on this question, yet I am firmly persuaded that the part I take is the best calculated to promote the necessary confidence in Government, and secure the virtue of its administration. As the gentleman, in an elegant discourse, has explained no difficulties, nor adduced any proofs in support of his opinions, I will only add, that I believe the Government to be so well established, and so much beloved by the citizens, as not to be endangered by the House of Representatives' examining how the laws have been obeyed in the application of public money, and giving their opinions upon the result of that examination.

That the Secretary has not reported fully to this House, in due time, is so much within the knowledge of every member, that it is impossible to doubt of the truth of the fact, however we may differ about the propriety of the conduct. To go no further back than last session—besides the references to the Secretary to report upon the Ways and Means, and inform the House what revenues were necessary, on the 20th of February, 1791, a standing order was resolved, directing that he should report to the House, within a few days after the meeting of the next session, "an accurate statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all the public moneys, in which shall be distinguished the expenditures which fall under each head of appropriation, and that it shall be shown the sums, if any, which remain unexpended," &c. Were not the moneys drawn upon loan, public moneys, and were not those loans appropriated? Undoubtedly, they were strictly so. It is a strange evasion to say, that by these expressions only the current revenue is intended. Arguments must be scarce when this becomes necessary. It requires no refutation.

On the 19th of January last, he was called upon to "lay before the House such information with respect to the finances of the United States, as will enable the Legislature to judge whether any or what additional revenues will be necessary." In consequence of the recommendations of the President, and the wishes of this House, to commence the discharge of the redeemable part of the Funded Debt, a reference was made to the Secretary, requiring him to report a mode for the application of the public money for that purpose; the House being assured, by the gentleman who moved the resolution, that no new tax was intended or necessary. But the Secretary, so far from informing the House how much money he had subject to his discretion, in the bank, in notes, &c., proposed a new and partial tax, as the foundation of a new system of loans. When the memorable bill to authorize another loan of $2,000,000, was before the House, a few weeks ago, we were told by gentlemen on this floor, that there was not time for argument; that the bill must be passed in three or four days, &c.; and when we wanted information, we were told by some of the friends of the bill that it was not convenient to give information there—that we might procure information elsewhere, as they had done. I confess I did not comprehend this method of legislating; but the Secretary has since explained it, in one of his reports, by complaining of the House, because the members did not go to his office and ask information, instead of requiring it to be publicly reported.

Even when this favorite bill for a new loan was before the House, the Secretary did not condescend to inform us that he had, without authority, provided near a million and a half of dollars for that purpose; he did not inform us how obligingly he had drawn bills upon our bankers in Holland, to have the money put in our way. Thus, in order to anticipate the payments due to the bank, he did what he could to induce Congress to break the public faith, by repealing the existing appropriation made for securing the discharge of a debt of justice and gratitude to the French nation. From this and other instances, it appears, that however high the Secretary's regard for public credit may be, there are other considerations which have obtained a higher degree of his attention than obedience to the laws. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Madison) has so clearly explained the nature of that discretion with which the Secretary is vested, and so fully proved that there was no necessity to justify a departure from the appropriations made by law, that it is not necessary for me to explain further on this head. However, I cannot help remarking, that the discretionary powers were pretty freely exercised. The drawing of bills began early indeed, and was continued to a recent period. The times of drawing fortunately corresponded with the necessities of the bank, and the power of employing agents was pretty freely used. The same agents were frequently both the sellers and the purchasers of the bills. Perhaps this was necessary: no doubt it was convenient. Probably it was safe; but who can say it will be always so.

I have not said so much to prove the truth of the facts expressed in the resolution, for of this there can be no doubt—it is as clear as the sun, shining in daylight,—but, in order to prove the propriety of this committee expressing its disapprobation of a conduct so unjustifiable. That information was withheld unduly, is evident, from the lateness of this discussion; that it was obtained with difficulty, is evident, from the numerous applications we were obliged to make in order to obtain it.

The House then adjourned until seven o'clock post meridian.

Evening Session—7 P.M.

An engrossed bill making certain appropriations therein mentioned was read the third time, and passed.

The bill sent from the Senate entitled "An act providing for the compensation of Ebenezer Storer," was read twice and committed.

Official Conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth resolutions contained in the motion of Thursday last, respecting the official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury. The third resolution being still under consideration, in the words following, viz:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury has violated the law passed the 4th of August, 1790, making appropriations of certain moneys authorized to be borrowed by the said law, in the following particulars, viz: First, by applying a certain portion of the principal borrowed to the payment of interest falling due upon that principal, which was not authorized by that or any other law. Secondly, by drawing a part of the said moneys into the United States, without the instructions of the President of the United States."

A motion was made, and the question being put, that the House do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to the resolution, it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 40, nays 12, as follows:

Yeas.—Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Christopher Greenup, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, George Leonard, Samuel Livermore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Nathaniel Niles, Theodore Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, William Smith, John Steele, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Artemas Ward, Hugh Williamson, and Francis Willis.

Nays.—John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, William Findlay, William B. Giles, Andrew Gregg, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, Andrew Moore, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, and Josiah Parker.

A motion was then made, and the question put, that the House do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to the fourth resolution, in the words following:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury has deviated from the instructions given him by the President of the United States, in executing the authorities for making loans, under the acts of the fourth and twelfth of August, one thousand seven hundred and ninety."

It was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 39, nays 12, as follows:

[The same as above.]

Another motion was then made, and the question being put, that the House do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to the fifth resolution, in the words following:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury has omitted to discharge an essential duty of his office, in failing to give Congress official information, in due time, of the moneys drawn by him from Europe into the United States; which drawing commenced December, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, and continued until January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three; and of the cause of making such drafts:"

It was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 33, nays 15, as follows:

Yeas.—Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, George Leonard, Samuel Livermore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Theodore Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, William Smith, John Steele, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Artemas Ward, and Hugh Williamson.

Nays.—John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, William Findlay, William B. Giles, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, Richard Bland Lee, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, Andrew Moore, Nathaniel Niles, John Page, Josiah Parker, and Israel Smith.

Another motion was then made, and the question being put, that the House do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to the sixth resolution, in the words following:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury has without the instruction of the President of the United States, drawn more moneys, borrowed in Holland, into the United States, than the President of the United States was authorized to draw, under the act of the twelfth of August, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, which act appropriated two millions of dollars only, when borrowed, to the purchase of the public debt; and that he has omitted to discharge an essential duty of his office, in failing to give official information to the commissioners for purchasing the public debt, of the various sums drawn from time to time, suggested by him to have been intended for the purchase of the public debt:"

It was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 33, nays 8, as follows:

[Yeas as above.]

Nays.—John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, William Findlay, William B. Giles, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, and Josiah Parker.

Another motion was then made, and the question being put, that the House do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to the seventh resolution, in the words following:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury did not consult the public interest, in negotiating a loan with the Bank of the United States, and drawing therefrom four hundred thousand dollars, at five per centum per annum, when a greater sum of public money was deposited in various banks, at the respective periods of making the respective drafts:"

It was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 33, nays 8, as follows:

[Same as above.]

Another motion was then made, and the question being put, that the House do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to the eighth resolution, in the words following:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury has been guilty of an indecorum to this House, in undertaking to judge of its motives in calling for information, which was demandable of him, from the constitution of his office, and in failing to give all the necessary information within his knowledge relatively to the subjects of reference made to him of the nineteenth of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, and of the twenty-second of November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, during the present session;"

Mr. William Smith said, that, after the vote which had just prevailed by so considerable a majority on the preceding resolutions, the committee could not, with any propriety, criminate the Secretary of the Treasury for failing to give the information alluded to, because by that vote it had been established that the Secretary had only acted under the authority of the President, and conformably to his instructions. If there had been any omission to communicate information to Congress, that omission was surely not chargeable to the Secretary. But it had been already clearly shown, by documents in the possession of the House, that the necessary information had been communicated. The Treasurer's accounts, which had been from time to time laid before the House, exhibited the amount of moneys proceeding from the sale of bills, and the Secretary's report of February, 1791, conveyed full information of the drawing. It was true, there was a sum of about $600,000, the proceeds of bills which, as had been remarked by a gentleman, (Mr. Madison,) did not appear in the Treasurer's account, but this was owing to the sales of the bills by the bank not having been closed at the time the last quarterly account was rendered, and consequently that sum could not appear in the Treasurer's account.

[Mr. Madison said, he had not meant to blame the Treasurer.]

Mr. Smith proceeded. The gentleman, however, had attributed misconduct to the Secretary, for withholding information of the amount of moneys in the Treasury accruing from foreign loans, when directed by the House, January 19th, 1792, to report whether the existing revenues were adequate to face the additional expense of the Indian war. Mr. S. could not forbear expressing great surprise at this remark of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Madison,) when he recollected what had been just before said by the same gentleman in support of the former resolution. The gentleman, on that occasion, in his attempt to disprove the right of the Secretary, ex officio, to superintend the moneys derived from the foreign loans, had endeavored to establish a nice distinction between the ordinary internal revenues of the country, and the resources resulting from foreign loans. The law constituting the Treasury Department, he had said, gave the Secretary power only over the revenues, which embraced only the ordinary resources, whereas loans were distinct things, the management of which was specially intrusted by law to the Supreme Magistrate, and in relation to which the Secretary could exercise no authority whatever that was not derived from the President. The gentleman now argued that the Secretary was blameable in not giving information of the state of these extraordinary resources, which were not within his department, when only called upon to state the amount of the ordinary revenues, which were within his department. He left it to the gentleman to reconcile this contradiction, for certainly his doctrine was erroneous on the former occasion, or it must be so now. If the moneys obtained from foreign loans were to be deemed the revenues of the country, then they fell of course under the management of the Head of the Treasury Department, and it was wrong in the gentleman to impute misconduct to the Secretary for exercising a legal authority; if, on the contrary, those moneys were viewed as an extra resource, and not within the purview of the Secretary's functions, then it was wrong to censure him for not communicating the state of those moneys, when required only to report the ordinary revenues.

But though the Secretary would not have been censurable for omitting to give the information, the truth was, that the President's Speech of 8th December, 1790, the Secretary's Report of 25th February, and the act of the 3d of March, 1791, were conclusive proofs that the Legislature knew that the proceeds of the loans were in a train of being brought to the United States and the accounts of receipts and expenditures presented in the first week of the session, informed the House that a large sum had been drawn for, and the Treasurer's quarterly account contained further information on the subject, all which was prior to any call of the House for such information. Hence, Mr. S. deduced, that it was not a fact that the Secretary had failed to give the information, as stated in the resolution, and that had he even so failed, he would not have been censurable for a breach of an essential duty of his office. It had been said, by a member from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Findlay,) that the lateness of the information from the Secretary made it inconvenient to go into an inquiry of his official conduct so near the close of the session. To this, Mr. S. replied, that he did not expect such a remark from that quarter of the House. If the gentleman had not been prepared for the inquiry, or thought it an improper season to enter upon it, why did he second the motion for bringing forward the charges? If suspicion had so long existed against the integrity of the Secretary, why was not information called for at the beginning of the session? Why was the call delayed till the session was within a few weeks of its termination? It was admitted that the Secretary had obeyed the order of the House with wonderful alacrity and promptitude. It was indeed strange that the gentleman who brought forward the charges, should be the first to complain that there was not time for their consideration.

Mr. S. concluded by noticing the observation of Mr. Mercer and Mr. Madison, that the opinion of the House on the preceding resolutions would not change the truth of facts, and that the public would ultimately decide whether the Secretary's conduct was criminal or not. This, said Mr. S., was like the conduct of a prosecutor, who, having chosen his jurisdiction, and being nonsuited, wished to appeal to another tribunal. Why were the resolutions brought before the House? Was it not to substantiate the truth of them by a vote? And had the prosecution succeeded, would the Secretary have had an appeal to the public? No, the resolutions would have been sent to the President, and the Secretary would have been removed, disgraced, and ruined for ever, without appeal.

The question was then taken, and it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 34, nays 7, as follows:

Yeas.—Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, William Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Aaron Kitchell, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, George Leonard, Samuel Livermore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Nathaniel Niles, Josiah Parker, Theodore Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, William Smith, John Steele, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Artemas Ward, and Hugh Williamson.

Nays.—John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, William B. Giles, William Barry Grove, Richard Bland Lee, Nathaniel Macon, and James Madison.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate having completed the Legislative business before them, are now about to adjourn.

Resolved. That Mr. Boudinot, Mr. Sedgwick, and Mr. Hindman, be appointed a committee jointly, with a committee on the part of the Senate, to wait on the President of the United States, and inform him that Congress is ready to adjourn without day, unless he may have any farther communications to make to them.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have agreed to the resolution of this House for the appointment of a joint committee, to wait on the President of the United States, and inform him of the intended recess of Congress, and have appointed a committee for that purpose, on their part.

On a motion made and seconded,

"That the thanks of the House of Representatives be presented to Jonathan Trumbull, in testimony of their approbation of his conduct in the chair, and in the execution of the difficult and important trust reposed in him, as Speaker of the said House,"

It was resolved unanimously: Whereupon,

Mr. Speaker made his acknowledgments to the House, in manner following:

"Gentlemen: You have made me very happy by this testimony of your approbation of my conduct in the chair. I feel, at the same time, an additional pleasure in the opportunity of rendering to you my sincere acknowledgments for the kind candor and indulgence, as well as the constant aid and support, which I have experienced in the performance of the duty which you were pleased to assign me. Be assured, gentlemen, I shall ever retain a grateful sense of your goodness; and you will suffer me to add, that my best wishes for your welfare and happiness, in public and private life, will attend each member of this honorable body."

Mr. Boudinot, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States, and inform him of the intended recess of Congress, reported that the committee had performed that duty, and that the President was pleased to say he had no farther communication to make during the present session: Whereupon,

Mr. Speaker adjourned the House sine die.

---