Thursday, January 13.
Another member, to wit, William Jones, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat in the House.
Franking Privilege.
Mr. Randolph moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the amendments offered by the Senate to the bill making appropriations for the Military Establishment for the year 1803.
The first amendment, applying an addition of two thousand dollars for the purchase of books, maps, and instruments for the use of the War Department, was agreed to.
On the second, adding $4,500 for the payment of postage on letters to and from the inspector, paymaster, &c., a lengthy debate ensued.
It was opposed on another ground—as being the duty of the Secretary of War to frank all letters going from the offices attached to the War Department, and, therefore, an appropriation was unnecessary.
In answer, it was observed, that the Government must, and ought, in some way, to support the expense of transporting returns, orders, and letters, relating to the military service; and, if they would not make an appropriation, it was proposed to extend the privilege of franking to the paymaster and inspector, through whom most of the details for the Army passed. That it was not the duty of the Secretary to frank letters and packages going from other offices—it was making a clerk of him—obliging him to do that which neither the law nor the constitution contemplated as being attached to his office; that it would encroach upon the time which, must necessarily be devoted to more important concerns. Besides, were he able and willing to perform the drudgery of that service, it was doubtful whether he had any legal or constitutional right to frank any packages, except those going immediately and directly from his own particular office, and that he might be liable to a penalty, though he should frank letters on public business, relating to the Army and War Department generally.
The extension of the privilege of franking was opposed by the Speaker, (Mr. Macon,) and others. They considered all franking as wrong, and liable to abuse—they would rather restrict than extend this privilege.
In reply, it was said that, if confidence could not be placed in those officers, as to the privilege of franking, the imposition could not be prevented by referring their packets to the Secretary of War, or by paying their account current with the postmasters. It was evident the Government must pay those expenses; that it could make no difference as to the revenue, whether the Postmaster General's Department received and paid to the Treasury the money which was drawn from the contingent fund of the War Department, or from a special appropriation to defray the expenses of postage on military letters and packets, or whether they extended the privilege of franking to those officers from and through whom the military details must pass. In the former case, it was but taking from one pocket and putting in the other—in the latter, much trouble was saved; and, if the characters employed in those departments were worthy of a confidence which should entitle them to the places they hold, it could never be supposed that they would abuse the privilege of franking.
On motion of Mr. Griswold, seconded by Mr. Eustis, the committee rose and the amendments from the Senate were recommitted to the Committee of Ways and Means.
Amendment of the Bankrupt Act.
Mr. Randolph hoped the act would not be amended, but repealed. When it passed, he was one of those who entered his protest against it. He considered it in the nature of an ex post facto law—an allurement to fraud—tending to corrupt the morals of the community—to change the nature of contracts—to discharge men, not only for their obligations and their solemn promises, but to violate their oaths. And, because Congress had a right to enact such a law, would gentlemen say it was for the benefit of trade? Its operations had been the reverse. He had been waiting, ever since its establishment, for the merchants themselves to come forward and urge the repeal. A portion of them had petitioned for amendments, which, in fact, amounted to a request for a repeal.
Mr. S. Smith thought any arguments on the merits of the question were premature. It was a subject of too much importance to be hurried in that manner. He hoped it would be recommitted.
Mr. Nicholson.—Many gentlemen appeared to wish a repeal, because there were some injurious provisions in the law; others wished it might be amended, believing it was capable of such alterations as would remove their objections. He thought it in some respects defective, and in others beneficial. If the evils to which it was subjected could be remedied, he should be for retaining, if not, for repealing the law.
Mr. Smilie.—Considering the situation of the United States, he thought there never should have been a bankrupt law; but he doubted whether it would be expedient to repeal it at this time, but let it expire of itself. He believed much mischief had been produced by it, and if it was repealed now, he apprehended much more would ensue. Its natural life was but five years, and he thought it had better exist for that period than be repealed. He was for recommitment.
Mr. Bayard agreed with the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Nicholson,) and thought the committee should have inquired what amendments were expedient. He was also forcibly impressed with the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Smilie,) that it was better to suffer the law to expire of itself than repeal it now. He did not think that the House were prepared to go into a discussion. The argument of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) that the bankrupt law was ex post facto, would not apply; but an act to repeal would in reality be an ex post facto law. Many merchants had entered into contracts, having an eye to the bankrupt law; many had embarked in perilous enterprises, knowing, that if they had made unfortunate calculations, that by a surrender of their effects they might again engage in commercial pursuits. And though a man might be discharged from his contracts, the sense of moral obligation was not impaired—in foro conscientiæ he was still answerable. He would not deny that frauds were committed, but for this should the honest debtor be eternally fettered with his debts? Should he, from unavoidable accidents, be cast into prison, and his family reduced to misery and distress? He was sure that the gentleman would revolt at the idea. Were the bankrupt law repealed, they must substitute the insolvent laws of the different States. Did not the insolvent laws of the Southern States hold out the same allurements to fraud as the general bankrupt law? By a repeal, they would increase the evils, and destroy the benefits of the general system. We were, said Mr. B., a great commercial Republic; the connection between merchants of the different States was increasing; therefore, the merchant of Georgia and the merchant of New Hampshire should be subjected to general regulations. Now, the merchant of Pennsylvania trusting the merchant of Virginia knew that his whole estate, real and personal, was liable for the payment of his debts; whereas, by the insolvent laws of that State, (Virginia,) the former might give an extensive credit; the latter might vest it all in land, which was untangible for the payment of his demand. The bankrupt act was a commercial law, extending equal benefits throughout the Union. If it was suffered to go back to the select committee, they would be able to give a clearer view of its advantages and defects. It was a subject of incalculable importance, both as it respected the debtor and creditor, and he hoped it would meet a candid and deliberate investigation.
Mr. Randolph said that the affairs of the world had been found to suffer more from being put in the hands of those who were superior to the management of them, than from those who were inadequate to the execution of those objects intrusted to them. It had been allowed a sound rule of construction, that all general powers must be confined to particular exceptions. The constitution gave Congress the right of making a bankrupt law, but it did not give the power of impairing contracts. He would exonerate the person, but never the property. It was the case in Virginia, when a man had surrendered all his property, his person was liberated, but his property never. And though we were a commercial Republic, was it not necessary to take care of the agricultural interest? How did the bankrupt law operate upon the planter? He knew by experience that it had been in many instances ruinous; that many planters had been choused out of their property by the operations of this very law. He had known from experience that many men had been buoyed up and supported by their friends till those friends were made good, and then suffered to fail, to the great injury of the former.
Mr. Bacon was in favor of a reference to a Committee of the whole House.
Mr. S. Smith said, gentlemen seemed to consider the bankrupt law as made entirely for the benefit of the debtor. That was an erroneous opinion. It was made also for the creditor: as such he advocated it. It enabled the creditor to secure his property, if he found the debtor was disposed to be fraudulent: he could apply for a commission of bankruptcy, and make the debtor account for the property in his possession. Besides, it reduced the creditors to an equality—a debtor could not secure his friends, and leave the rest of his creditors without a dollar. An instance of that kind had lately come within his knowledge. To the agricultural interest it held out still greater advantages. The farmer who brought his produce to market could always get cash, if he would sell for cash; if he chose to sell on a credit, he received a higher price in proportion; that increase of price was his insurance for selling on credit. He was for examining the subject, and endeavoring to remedy defects, rather than repealing.
Mr. Holland moved that it be referred to a Committee of the whole House. Carried.