Friday, February 12.
State Balances.
Mr. Thomas called up his motion respecting State Balances, which is as follows:
"Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of extinguishing the claims of the United States for certain balances, which, by the Commissioners appointed to settle the accounts between the United States and the individual States, were reported to be due from several of the States to the United States, and that the said committee have leave to report by bill or otherwise."
Mr. Bayard hoped the resolution would prevail. The debtor States, not satisfied with the settlement made by the Board of Commissioners, had asked for information respecting the grounds on which it had been made. The information had been imperiously refused. In his opinion it was but right, if the debtor States did not dispute the validity of the debts due to the creditor States, that they should agree to expunge the claims against the debtor States. Indeed, he had been assured that the commission was not instituted with a view of sustaining any charges against the debtor States, but for ascertaining the amount due to the creditor States, and funding them; and he believed it had been so understood at the time. This was an affair not determinable by the ordinary rules applied to individual cases. Many of the States, not expecting a settlement, had kept no accounts or vouchers; and however great the supplies they contributed under such circumstances, they received no credits for them; while those States which had been most careful in the preservation of vouchers, shared a different and a better fate.
Mr. B. believed it was the true policy of the creditor States to agree to the extinguishment of these balances. He believed they never could be paid, because no State allowed them to be due. They would not, therefore, be paid voluntarily; and he knew of no force in the United States to compel payment. Why, then, keep up a source of irritation, which could do no possible good, and which could only tend to repel some States from that constitution, which we all ought to endeavor to make the object of general affection?
Mr. Southard said, he had yet heard no reason that convinced him that the resolution offered was just or proper. It would be recollected that this contract was made under the confederation. In the establishment of our independence, great and various exertions had been made. In the contributions made, great inequalities took place, which were unavoidable. Generally, where the war existed, the States became creditor States. It was just that those States which had contributed more than their share should be repaid, and that those who had paid less should make up the deficiency. If the debtor States were not to pay their balances, why settle the accounts? To relinquish the payment would be, in his opinion, not only unjust but unconstitutional. The constitution says, "All debts contracted, and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this constitution, shall be as valid against the United States, under this constitution as under the Confederation;" and the present Government had recognized those debts as just. The gentleman from Delaware says, the settlement is not just. But this was barely the suggestion of his own mind. To sustain it, he ought to have shown its defects; but this he had not done.
Mr. Mitchill was in favor of the resolution, as he believed a refusal to adopt it would be attended with unpleasant sensations. He judged so from an historical review of the business. The several States had associated together for their common defence, and, in the eye of equity, whatever that defence required, should constitute a common charge. The accounts of expenses thus incurred were not settled till the new Government was established. That Government fixed the mode of settlement; it appointed a board of referees, to report the debts and credits of the respective States. In this report, it was the fortune of certain States, notwithstanding the greatness of their contributions, to be reported debtor States. These States became debtors from the independent spirit with which they asserted their sovereign rights. Not relying on the general contributions, they furnished great supplies without making any charge to the Union; by exerting all their strength, they paid as they went, and preserved no vouchers of what they paid. This, he averred, was the case as to the State which he had the honor in part to represent; a State as willing as able to contribute, and which did contribute to a great extent; but which had neglected to preserve her vouchers, the preservation of which would have made her a creditor State. He believed, therefore, that in equity, the States were not bound to pay these balances. But to this it is replied, the award is final. He would not agree to that; he denied it. Besides, there was a want of coercive power in the United States to enforce those demands. From this consideration alone, we ought to proceed with lenity, and endeavor to make the settlement a peaceable one. As in other circumstances, we ought to make a virtue of necessity.
Mr. S. Smith said, he did not rise to take any part in the debate, but in order to bring the subject directly before the committee. To do which, he moved so to amend the resolution as to make it read, "Resolved, That it is expedient to extinguish the claims," &c.
Mr. Lowndes hoped the amendment would not be agreed to. He did not see the expediency of volunteering a relinquishment of the claims established against several of the States. The amendment was calculated to take the committee by surprise. The original resolution went merely to consider the expediency of a relinquishment; the amendment involved the principle itself.