If a general standard must be fixed, numbers were preferable to land. Modes might be devised to ascertain the former with tolerable precision; but I am persuaded the experiment will prove, that the value of all the land in each State cannot be ascertained with any thing like exactness. Both these measures have the common disadvantage of being no equal representative of the wealth of the people; but one is much more simple, definite, and certain than the other.
I have indulged myself in these remarks, to show that I have little expectation of success from any mode of carrying the article in question into execution upon equitable principles. I owe it, however, to myself, to declare, that my opposition did not arise from this source. The Confederation has pointed out this mode; and, though I would heartily join in a representation of the difficulties (of which every man of sense must be sensible on examination) that occur in the execution of the plan, to induce the States to consent to a change, yet, as this was not the disposition of a majority of Congress, I would have assented to any mode of attempting it which was not either obviously mischievous or impracticable.
The first plan proposed, as your Excellency will see, was an actual valuation of each State by itself. This was evidently making the interested party judge in his own cause. Those who have seen the operation of this principle between the counties in the same State, and the districts in the same county, cannot doubt a moment that the valuations on this plan would have been altogether unequal and unjust. Without supposing more liberality in one State than another, the degree of care, judgment, and method, employed in the execution, would alone make extreme differences in the results.
This mode has, also, the further inconvenience of awakening all the jealousies of the several States against each other. Each would suspect that its neighbor had favored itself, whether the partiality appeared or not. It would be impossible to silence these distrusts, and to make the States sit down satisfied with the justice of each other. Every new requisition for money would be a new signal for discussion and clamor; and the seeds of disunion, already sown too thick, would not be a little multiplied.
To guard against these evils, the plan proposes a revision by Congress; but it is easy to be seen that such a power could not be exercised. Should any States return defective valuations, it would be difficult to find sufficient evidence to determine them such. To alter would not be admissible; for Congress could have no data which could be presumed equivalent to those which must have governed the judgment of commissioners under oath, or an actual view of the premises. To do either this, or to reject, would be an impeachment of the honor of the States, which it is not probable there would be decision enough to hazard; and which, if done, could not fail to excite serious disgusts. There is a wide difference between a single State exercising such a power over its own counties, and a Confederated Government exercising it over sovereign States which compose the Confederacy. It might also happen, that too many States would be interested in the defective valuations, to leave a sufficient number willing, either to alter or to reject.
These considerations prevailed to prevent the plan being adopted by a majority.
The last plan may be less mischievous than the first; but it appears to me altogether ineffectual. The mere quantity of land granted and surveyed, with the general species of buildings upon them, can certainly be no criteria to determine their value. The plan does not even distinguish the improved from the unimproved land; the qualities of soil, or degrees of improvement: the quantities of the houses and other buildings, are entirely omitted. These, it seems, are to be judged of by the commissioners to be appointed by each State. But I am unable to conceive, how any commissioner can form the least estimate of these circumstances with respect even to his own State, much less with respect to other States, which would be necessary to establish a just relative value. If even there was a distinction of improved from unimproved land, by supposing an intrinsic value in the land, and adopting general rates, something nearer the truth might be attained; but it must now be all conjecture and uncertainty.
The numbers of inhabitants, distinguishing white from black, are called for. This is not only totally foreign to the Confederation, but can answer no reasonable purpose. It has been said, that the proportion of numbers may guide and correct the estimates. An assertion, purely verbal, has no meaning. A judgment must first be formed of the value of the lands upon some principles. If this should be altered by the proportion of numbers, it is plain numbers would be substituted to land.
Another objection to this plan is, that it lets in the particular interests of the States, to operate in the returns of the quantities of land, number of buildings, and number of inhabitants. But the principle of this objection applies less forcibly here than against the former plan.
Whoever will consider the plain import of the eighth article of the Confederation, must be convinced, that it intended an actual and specific valuation of land, buildings, and improvements, not a mere general estimate, according to the present plan. While we insist, therefore, upon adhering to the Confederation, we should do it in reality, not barely in appearance.