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.