As the honorable Assembly have, through their delegates, proposed certain resolutions, it will be proper to examine the reasoning which led to that proposition. And first, it alleged, that "if an exact account is really wanted of the specific articles for which any certificate was given, it may be found in the receipts given by the party, at the time of getting his certificate, and that these receipts are in the power of the public, being lodged with the heads of the different departments." Surely such an assertion is somewhat hazarded. Congress have before them full evidence, that many persons, late officers in the civil departments, refuse to account at all. If, therefore, such persons should even possess the supposed receipts, still those receipts are not in the power of the public, nor will they be so until all the States have passed laws similar to those of the State of Pennsylvania. But further, it will on inquiry appear, that when individuals received certificates from public officers, the receipts they gave did not always contain a list of the articles, or account of the services which had been rendered. Certainly, where any fraud was designed, a specification of articles was of course avoided; and in many cases it has been neglected, even where nothing wrong was intended. The idea therefore that the specific articles are contained in the receipts, is as unfounded as that those receipts are in the power of the public.
But supposing the facts were such as they are assumed to be, will it follow, that the officers have in no instance, been guilty of collusion with individuals, and given more than they were worth both for articles and services? And will it not appear, that an exact account of the specific articles is really wanted, and indeed absolutely necessary, for the detection of such abuses? Or if it be supposed that all the inhabitants of Pennsylvania were so honest and so disinterested, as neither to partake in fraud, nor take advantage of negligence, must it also be presumed that the public officers, acting within that State, have in no cases whatever seized the property of individuals and given certificates for less than the value? Or if it be imagined, that the officers and the individuals have been all alike innocent, and that the clamors raised on these subjects are totally groundless as to Pennsylvania, will it follow that such things have not happened in any other State? Or will it be proper to establish different rules for the settlement of public accounts, under the idea of honesty in one State and the want of it in another?
It is however assumed, as a position, that "any frauds which have been committed cannot be detected in any other place, so well as by the commissioners who settle the general accounts, at the heads of departments." But surely it is necessary, not only to the detection of frauds, but even to the settlement of accounts at all, that the commissioners acting in the several States, obtain accounts of the articles before they pass the sums. If, for instance, the public officer should by collusion with the party, make a charge of double the sum actually due for any article, can a deduction be made after the sum has been passed to the individual by the state commissioner? If the officer should omit to charge himself with articles purchased, can this be proved, when only the money certificate is produced against him? If the officer paid, by a certificate, the nominal sum for articles purchased, a year before, will this appear in such manner as to prevent him from taking all the benefit of the depreciation? If, for instance, he purchased to the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, when money was at two for one, paid in certificates when it was at four for one, and carried the articles to account at a reasonable specie value, viz. one hundred thousand dollars, and if the certificates be now liquidated at their value, viz. fifty thousand dollars, would he not be gainer of the like sum of fifty thousand dollars merely by the depreciation? It is also asserted, "That the holders of certificates are subjected to many inconveniencies from this delay, and that after coming from the remote parts of the State, and having a liquidation of their certificates refused, they depart with murmurs and discontent." If holders of certificates came from remote parts of the State, and the Act of Congress of the 20th of February, 1782, intended to afford relief, becomes thereby a source of distress, it must arise either from the ignorance of the people themselves, or from a want of attention in the commissioner; for by the Act it is ordained, "that the commissioners respectively give public and early notice of the times and places of their settling, and the districts within which they settle accounts, that as well the public officers as private individuals, may have an opportunity to attend." From the whole scope and tenor of the Act, as well as from the express words of this particular part, it appears clearly to have been the intention of Congress, that the commissioner should mark out convenient districts in the State, take some proper position in each district, and then give such early public notice of the place and the district, as that claims arising from transactions within that district might be brought in and adjusted, and both the public officer and the private individual concerned in the transaction, have an opportunity of attending.
As the honorable Assembly have marked out a different mode of settlement from that which has been adopted, it may be proper to take a general view of the present and of the proposed plan, so as to discover the inconveniencies resulting from each, and thence determine which ought to be preferred. Under the present plan, the first step of the commissioner is to mark out some particular spot, with a convenient surrounding district, within which the parties may attend, without the waste of time and the expense of long journeys. The next is to give early public notice thereof. Supposing then the time to have arrived, which he had specified in his advertisement, and a claimant to appear, the first question to be solved is, whether that claimant be one of those whose demands are to be adjusted by him, or whether it is the business of a commissioner of one of the departments. Supposing the former, the next object of inquiry would be, whether any and what services or supplies were rendered by the claimant to the United States, and if any were rendered, then what was the real value at the time and place of rendering them. Every kind of evidence exhibited in support of each point is then to be examined, the officer who is said to have received the articles is to be heard, if he contest the claim, and, finally, the commissioner being in the vicinity of the place, with opportunity to learn both the acts done and the characters of the agents, must decide according to equity and good conscience, where no express provision is made by an Act of Congress. If this decision be in favor of the claimant, the business of the commissioner is to give a certificate for the full value of the articles and services, and then to charge the proper officer and department, not with so much money, but with the specific articles and services, for the due application whereof account is to be rendered to the commissioner of the department.
A duty of the State commissioner, in the course of this business, will be to discover and detect as much as possible the frauds which have been committed, and transmit proper evidence, as it may arise, to the commissioner of the department. In cases, however, where the decision is against the claimant, it will be proper still to return to the commissioner of the department a statement of the claim, that if it should be found to be credited to the public, in the accounts of such department, the party may meet with redress at a future period. The inconveniencies attending this mode are, that possibly some just claims may be finally rejected from the want of sufficient proof, and that some honest claimants may be put to trouble and difficulty in supporting their claims.
The proposed plan appears to be shortly this, that the commissioner shall liquidate every certificate which may be tendered to him in specie value. If, however, the restriction implied in the Extract, by the words "that no delay be given to any certificate granted by an officer who has settled his public accounts," &c. be made, viz. that the liquidation of such certificates be suspended until the accounts of the officer who gave them be settled, it is humbly conceived that such liquidation can never take place; because, as the public have assumed the debts of their officers, it is impossible to settle the accounts of those officers, until the amount of their debts be known; those debts forming a charge against the officers in the same manner as the moneys advanced to them from the public treasury. The settlement of the officers' accounts must, therefore, ultimately depend on the settlements made with individuals, and therefore this restriction must be rejected or the whole plan prove abortive.
The proposition of the honorable Assembly may then be examined and considered as of the effect which is just now stated. And if that proposition be adopted, the commissioner sitting in one corner of the State and examining claims and certificates brought from two or three hundred miles distance, without the slightest attention to the value of articles for which money is claimed, will be exposed to every kind of imposition. Certificates will be counterfeited, pretended depositions will be produced, fabricated accounts will be delivered, vast sums will of course be acknowledged as due to whoever may please to demand them. The officers will (and very justly too) refuse to account for such sums, the frauds which they will detect in claims allowed by the State commissioners will cast a cloud even upon the just claims, and the commissioners for the departments will for that reason be unable to insist on any. Thus the officers will be empowered in their turn to render such accounts as they think proper. So that on the whole, the public debts will be greatly and unnecessarily accumulated, and a precedent will be established to sanctify every improper act which may hereafter be committed in times of confusion.
These are public inconveniencies, and from a comparison of the two plans one important question arises, shall the public property be given away, and the country be taxed for the purpose of paying moneys not justly due; or shall individuals who have claims on the United States be obliged to validate such claims by sufficient evidence? Surely the honorable Assembly of Pennsylvania will not, cannot hesitate, in deciding this question. All which is humbly submitted.
ROBERT MORRIS.
Office of Finance, November 5th, 1783.