Sir,
The reference which Congress were pleased to make of a remonstrance and petition from Blair Mc Clenaghan and others, has induced me to pray their indulgence while I go somewhat at large into the subject of that remonstrance.
The propriety and utility of public loans have been subjects of much controversy. Those who find themselves saddled with the debts of a preceding generation, naturally exclaim against loans; and it must be confessed, that when such debts are accumulated by negligence, folly or profusion, the complaint is well founded. But it would be equally so against taxes, when wasted in the same way. The difference is, that the weight of taxes being more sensible, the waste occasions greater clamor, and is therefore more speedily remedied. But it will appear, that the eventual evils, which posterity must sustain from heavy taxes are greater than from loans. Hence may be deduced this conclusion, that in governments liable to a vicious administration, it would be better to raise the current expense by taxes; but where an honest and wise appropriation of money prevails, it is highly advantageous to take the benefit of loans. Taxation to a certain point, is not only proper but useful, because by stimulating the industry of individuals, it increases the wealth of the community. But when taxes go so far as to entrench on the subsistence of the people, they have become burdensome and oppressive. The expenditure of money ought in such case to be, if possible, avoided; if unavoidable, it will be most wise to have recourse to loans.
Loans may be of two kinds, either domestic or foreign. The relative advantages and disadvantages of each, as well as those which are common to both, will deserve attention. Reasonings of this kind, as they depend on rules of arithmetic, are best understood by numerical positions. For the purposes of elucidation, therefore, it may be supposed that the annual tax of any particular husbandman were fifteen pounds, so that (the whole being regularly consumed in payment of taxes) he would be no richer at the end of the war, than he was at the beginning. It is at the same time notorious, that the profits made by husbandmen, on funds which they borrowed were very considerable. In many instances their plantations, as well as the cattle and family utensils, have been purchased on credit, and the bonds given for both have shortly been paid by sales of produce. It is, therefore, no exaggeration to state the profits at twelve per cent. The enormous usury, which people in trade have been induced to pay, and which will presently be noticed, demonstrates that the profits made by the other professions, are equal to those of the husbandman.
The instance, therefore, taken from that which is the most numerous class of citizens, will form no improper standard for the whole. Let it then be farther supposed in the case already stated, that the party should annually borrow the sum of ten pounds at six per cent, to pay part of the tax of fifteen pounds. On this sum then he would make a profit of twentyfour shillings, and have to pay an interest of twelve shillings. The enclosed calculation will show, that in ten years he would be indebted one hundred pounds, but his additional improvements would be worth near one hundred and fifty, and his net revenue be increased near twelve, after deducting the interest of his debt. Whereas if he had not borrowed, his revenue, as has been already observed, would have continued the same. This mode of reasoning might be pursued farther, but what has been said is sufficient to show, that he would have made a considerable advantage from the yearly loan. If it be supposed, that every person in the community made such a loan, a similar advantage would arise to the community. And lastly, if it be supposed, that the government were to make a loan and ask so much less in taxes, the same advantage would be derived. Hence, also, may be deduced this position, that in a society where the average profits of stock are double the interest at which money can be obtained, every public loan for necessary expenditures, provides a fund in the aggregate of national wealth equal to the discharge of its own interest.
Were it possible that a society should exist, in which every member would of his own accord industriously pursue the increase of national property, without waste or extravagance, the public wealth would be impaired by every species of taxation. But there never was, and unless human nature should change, there never will be such a society. In any given number of men, there always will be some who are idle, and some who are extravagant. In every society also there must be some taxes, because the necessity of supporting government and defending the State always exists. To do these on the cheapest terms is wise, and when it is considered how much men are disposed to indolence and profusion it will appear, that even if those demands did not require the whole of what could be raised, still it would be wise to carry taxation to a certain amount, and expend what should remain after providing for the support of government and the national defence, in works of public utility, such as the opening of roads and navigation. For taxes operate two ways towards the increase of national wealth. First, they stimulate industry to provide the means of payment. Secondly, they encourage economy, so far as to avoid the purchase of unnecessary things, and keep money in readiness for the tax gatherers. Experience shows, that those exertions of industry and economy grow by degrees into habit. But in order that taxation may have these good effects, the sum which every man is to pay and the period of payment, should be certain and unavoidable.
This digression opens the way to a comparison between foreign and domestic loans. If the loan be domestic, money must be diverted from those channels in which it would otherwise have flowed; and, therefore, either the public must give better terms than individuals, or there must be money enough to supply the wants of both. In the latter case, if the public did not borrow, the quantity of money would exceed the demand, and the interest would be lowered; borrowing by the public, therefore, would keep up the rate of interest; which brings the latter case within the reason of the former. If the public out bid individuals, those individuals are deprived of the means of extending their industry; so that no case of a domestic loan can well be supposed where some public loss will not arise to counterbalance the public gain, except where the creditor spares from his consumption to lend to the government, which operates a national economy. It is, however, an advantage peculiar to domestic loans, that they give stability to government, by combining together the interests of the monied men for its support; and, consequently, in this country a domestic debt would greatly contribute to that union, which seems not to have been sufficiently attended to or provided for in forming the national compact. Domestic loans are also useful, from the farther consideration, that as taxes fall heavy on the lower orders of the community, the relief obtained for them by such loans more than counterbalances the loss sustained by those who would have borrowed money to extend their commerce or tillage. Neither is it a refinement to observe, that since a plenty of money and consequent ease of obtaining it, induce men to engage in speculations, which are often unprofitable, the check which these receive is not injurious, while the relief obtained by the poor is highly beneficial.
By making foreign loans, the community, as such, receive the same extensive benefits, which one individual does in borrowing of another. This country was always in the practice of making such loans. The merchants in Europe trusted those in America. The American merchants trusted the country store-keepers, and they the people at large. This advance of credit may be stated at not less than twenty millions of dollars. And the want of that credit now is one principal reason of those usurious contracts mentioned above. These have been checked by the institution of the bank, but the funds of that corporation not permitting those extensive advances, which the views of different people require, the price given for particular accommodations of money continues to be enormous; and that again shows, that to make domestic loans would be difficult, if not impracticable. The merchants not having now that extensive credit in Europe, which they formerly had, the obtaining such credit by government becomes in some sort necessary.
But there remains an objection with many against foreign loans, which (though it arises from a superficial view of the subject) has no little influence. This is, that the interest will form a balance of trade against us, and drain the country of specie; which is only saying in other words, that it would be more convenient to receive money as a present, than as a loan; for the advantages derived by the loan exist, notwithstanding the payment of interest. To show this more clearly, a case may be stated, which in this city is very familiar. An Island in the Delaware overflowed at high water has for a given sum, suppose a thousand pounds, been banked in, drained, and made to produce, by the hay sold from it at Philadelphia, a considerable sum annually; for instance, two hundred pounds. If the owner of such an Island had borrowed in Philadelphia the thousand pounds to improve it, and given six per cent interest, he would have gained a net revenue of one hundred and forty pounds. This certainly would not be a balance of trade against his Island, nor the draining it of specie. He would gain considerably, and the city of Philadelphia also would gain, by bringing to market an increased quantity of a necessary article.