Home

The Writings of James Madison, comprising his Public Papers and his Private Correspondence, including his numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900). Vol. 6.

Author: James Madison
Editor: Gaillard Hunt

Part of: The Writings of James Madison, 9 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.

Copyright information:

The text is in the public domain.

Fair use statement:

This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.

SPEECHES IN THE FIRST CONGRESS—THIRD SESSION, 1791.

FEBRUARY 2.—BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

Mr. Madison began with a general review of the advantages and disadvantages of banks. The former, he stated, to consist in, first, the aid they afford to merchants, who can thereby push their mercantile operations further with the same capital. Second. The aids to merchants in paying punctually the customs. Third. Aids to the Government in complying punctually with its engagements, when deficiencies or delays happen in the revenue. Fourth. In diminishing usury. Fifth. In saving the wear of gold and silver kept in the vaults, and represented by notes. Sixth. In facilitating occasional remittances from different places where notes happen to circulate.

The effect of the proposed bank, in raising the value of stock, he thought had been greatly overrated. It would no doubt raise that of the stock subscribed into the bank; but could have little effect on stock in general, as the interest on it would remain the same, and the quantity taken out of the market would be replaced by bank stock.

The principal disadvantages consisted in, first, banishing the precious metals, by substituting another medium to perform their office. This effect was inevitable. It was admitted by the most enlightened patrons of banks, particularly by Smith on the Wealth of Nations. The common answer to the objection was, that the money banished was only an exchange for something equally valuable that would be imported in return. He admitted the weight of this observation in general; but doubted whether, in the present habits of this country, the returns would not be in articles of no permanent use to it.

Second. Exposing the public and individuals to all the evils of a run on the bank, which would be particularly calamitous in so great a country as this, and might happen from various causes, as false rumors, bad management of the institution, an unfavorable balance of trade from short crops, &c.

It was proper to be considered, also, that the most important of the advantages would be better obtained by several banks, properly distributed, than by a single one. The aids to commerce could only be afforded at or very near the seat of the bank. The same was true of aids to merchants in the payment of customs. Anticipations of the Government would also be most convenient at the different places where the interest of the debt was to be paid. The case in America was different from that in England: the interest there was all due at one place, and the genius of the Monarchy favored the concentration of wealth and influence at the metropolis.

He thought the plan liable to other objections. It did not make so good a bargain for the public as was due to its interests. The charter to the Bank of England had been granted for eleven years only, and was paid for by a loan to the Government on terms better than could be elsewhere got. Every renewal of the charter had, in like manner, been purchased; in some instances, at a very high price. The same had been done by the Banks of Genoa, Naples, and other like banks of circulation. The plan was unequal to the public creditors; it gave an undue preference to the holders of a particular denomination of the public debt, and to those at and within reach of the seat of Government. If the subscriptions should be rapid, the distant holders of evidences of debt would be excluded altogether.

In making these remarks on the merits of the bill, he had reserved to himself the right to deny the authority of Congress to pass it. He had entertained this opinion from the date of the Constitution. His impression might, perhaps, be the stronger, because he well recollected that a power to grant charters of incorporation had been proposed in the General Convention and rejected.

Is the power of establishing an incorporated Bank among the powers vested by the Constitution in the Legislature of the United States? This is the question to be examined.

After some general remarks on the limitations of all political power, he took notice of the peculiar manner in which the Federal Government is limited. It is not a general grant, out of which particular powers are excepted; it is a grant of particular powers only, leaving the general mass in other hands. So it had been understood by its friends and its foes, and so it was to be interpreted.

As preliminaries to a right interpretation, he laid down the following rules:

An interpretation that destroys the very characteristic of the Government cannot be just.

Where a meaning is clear, the consequences, whatever they may be, are to be admitted—where doubtful, it is fairly triable by its consequences.

In controverted cases, the meaning of the parties to the instrument, if to be collected by reasonable evidence, is a proper guide.

Contemporary and concurrent expositions are a reasonable evidence of the meaning of the parties.

In admitting or rejecting a constructive authority, not only the degree of its incidentality to an express authority is to be regarded, but the degree of its importance also; since on this will depend the probability or improbability of its being left to construction.

Reviewing the Constitution with an eye to these positions, it was not possible to discover in it the power to incorporate a Bank. The only clauses under which such a power could be pretended are either:

1. The power to lay and collect taxes to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare: or,

2. The power to borrow money on the credit of the United States: or,

3. The power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution those powers.

The bill did not come within the first power. It laid no tax to pay the debts, or provide for the general welfare. It laid no tax whatever. It was altogether foreign to the subject.

No argument could be drawn from the terms “common defence and general welfare.” The power as to these general purposes was limited to acts laying taxes for them; and the general purposes themselves were limited and explained by the particular enumeration subjoined. To understand these terms in any sense, that would justify the power in question, would give to Congress an unlimited power; would render nugatory the enumeration of particular powers; would supersede all the powers reserved to the State Governments. These terms are copied from the articles of Confederation; had it ever been pretended that they were to be understood otherwise than as here explained?

It had been said, that “general welfare” meant cases in which a general power might be exercised by Congress, without interfering with the powers of the States; and that the establishment of a National Bank was of this sort. There were, he said, several answers to this novel doctrine.

1. The proposed Bank would interfere, so as indirectly to defeat a State Bank at the same place.

2. It would directly interfere with the rights of the States to prohibit as well as to establish Banks, and the circulation of Bank notes. He mentioned a law in Virginia actually prohibiting the circulation of notes payable to bearer.

3. Interference with the power of the States was no constitutional criterion of the power of Congress. If the power was not given, Congress could not exercise it; if given, they might exercise it, although it should interfere with the laws, or even the Constitution of the States.

4. If Congress could incorporate a Bank merely because the act would leave the States free to establish Banks also, any other incorporations might be made by Congress. They could incorporate companies of manufacturers, or companies for cutting canals, or even religious societies, leaving similar incorporations by the States, like State Banks, to themselves. Congress might even establish religious teachers in every parish, and pay them out of the Treasury of the United States, leaving other teachers unmolested in their functions. These inadmissible consequences condemned the controverted principle.

The case of the Bank established by the former Congress had been cited as a precedent. This was known, he said, to have been the child of necessity. It never could be justified by the regular powers of the articles of Confederation. Congress betrayed a consciousness of this in recommending to the States to incorporate the Bank also. They did not attempt to protect the Bank notes by penalties against counterfeiters. These were reserved wholly to the authority of the States.

The second clause to be examined is that which empowers Congress to borrow money.

Is this bill to borrow money? It does not borrow a shilling. Is there any fair construction by which the bill can be deemed an exercise of the power to borrow money? The obvious meaning of the power to borrow money, is that of accepting it from, and stipulating payment to those who are able and willing to lend.

To say that the power to borrow involves a power of creating the ability, where there may be the will, to lend, is not only establishing a dangerous principle, as will be immediately shown, but is as forced a construction as to say that it involves the power of compelling the will, where there may be the ability to lend.

The third clause is that which gives the power to pass all laws necessary and proper to execute the specified powers.

Whatever meaning this clause may have, none can be admitted, that would give an unlimited discretion to Congress.

Its meaning must, according to the natural and obvious force of the terms and the context, be limited to means necessary to the end, and incident to the nature of the specified powers.

The clause is in fact merely declaratory of what would have resulted by unavoidable implication, as the appropriate, and, as it were, technical means of executing those powers. In this sense it has been explained by the friends of the Constitution, and ratified by the State Conventions.

The essential characteristic of the Government, as composed of limited and enumerated powers, would be destroyed, if, instead of direct and incidental means, any means could be used, which, in the language of the preamble to the bill, “might be conceived to be conducive to the successful conducting of the finances, or might be conceived to tend to give facility to the obtaining of loans.” He urged an attention to the diffuse and ductile terms which had been found requisite to cover the stretch of power contained in the bill. He compared them with the terms necessary and proper, used in the Constitution, and asked whether it was possible to view the two descriptions as synonymous, or the one as a fair and safe commentary on the other.

If, proceeded he, Congress, by virtue of the power to borrow, can create the means of lending, and, in pursuance of these means, can incorporate a Bank, they may do any thing whatever creative of like means.

The East India Company has been a lender to the British Government, as well as the Bank, and the South Sea Company is a greater creditor than either. Congress, then, may incorporate similar companies in the United States, and that too under the idea of regulating trade, but under that of borrowing money.

Private capitals are the chief resources for loans to the British Government. Whatever then may be conceived to favor the accumulation of capitals may be done by Congress. They may incorporate manufacturers. They may give monopolies in every branch of domestic industry.

If, again, Congress by virtue of the power to borrow money, can create the ability to lend, they may, by virtue of the power to levy money, create the ability to pay it. The ability to pay taxes depends on the general wealth of the society, and this, on the general prosperity of agriculture, manufactures, and commerce. Congress then may give bounties and make regulations on all of these objects.

The States have, it is allowed on all hands, a concurrent right to lay and collect taxes. This power is secured to them, not by its being expressly reserved, but by its not being ceded by the Constitution. The reasons for the bill cannot be admitted, because they would invalidate that right; why may it not be conceived by Congress, that a uniform and exclusive imposition of taxes, would not less than the proposed Banks “be conducive to the successful conducting of the national finances, and tend to give facility to the obtaining of revenue, for the use of the Government?”

The doctrine of implication is always a tender one. The danger of it has been felt in other Governments. The delicacy was felt in the adoption of our own; the danger may also be felt, if we do not keep close to our chartered authorities.

Mark the reasoning on which the validity of the bill depends! To borrow money is made the end, and the accumulation of capitals implied as the means. The accumulation of capitals is then the end, and a Bank implied as the means. The Bank is then the end, and a charter of incorporation, a monopoly, capital punishments, &c., implied as the means.

If implications, thus remote and thus multiplied, can be linked together, a chain may be formed that will reach every object of legislation, every object within the whole compass of political economy.

The latitude of interpretation required by the bill is condemned by the rule furnished by the Constitution itself.

Congress have power “to regulate the value of money”; yet it is expressly added, not left to be implied, that counter-feiters may be punished.

They have the power “to declare war,” to which armies are more incident than incorporated banks to borrowing; yet the power “to raise and support armies” is expressly added; and to this again, the express power “to make rules and regulations for the government of armies”; a like remark is applicable to the powers as to the navy.

The regulation and calling out of the militia are more appertinent to war than the proposed Bank to borrowing; yet the former is not left to construction.

The very power to borrow money is a less remote implication from the power of war, than an incorporated monopoly Bank from the power of borrowing; yet, the power to borrow is not left to implication.

It is not pretended that every insertion or omission in the Constitution is the effect of systematic attention. This is not the character of any human work, particularly the work of a body of men. The examples cited, with others that might be added, sufficiently inculcate, nevertheless, a rule of interpretation very different from that on which the bill rests. They condemn the exercise of any power, particularly a great and important power, which is not evidently and necessarily involved in an express power.

It cannot be denied that the power proposed to be exercised is an important power.

As a charter of incorporation the bill creates an artificial person, previously not existing in law. It confers important civil rights and attributes, which could not otherwise be claimed. It is, though not precisely similar, at least equivalent, to the naturalization of an alien, by which certain new civil characters are acquired by him. Would Congress have had the power to naturalize, if it had not been expressly given?

In the power to make by-laws, the bill delegated a sort of Legislative power, which is unquestionably an act of a high and important nature. He took notice of the only restraint on the by-laws, that they were not to be contrary to the law and the constitution of the Bank, and asked what law was intended; if the law of the United States, the scantiness of their code would give a power never before given to a corporation, and obnoxious to the States, whose laws would then be superseded, not only by the laws of Congress, but by the bylaws of a corporation within their own jurisdiction. If the law intended was the law of the State, then the State might make laws that would destroy an institution of the United States.

The bill gives a power to purchase and hold lands; Congress themselves could not purchase lands within a State “without the consent of its Legislature.” How could they delegate a power to others which they did not possess themselves?

It takes from our successors, who have equal rights with ourselves, and with the aid of experience will be more capable of deciding on the subject, an opportunity of exercising that right for an immoderate term.

It takes from our constituents the opportunity of deliberating on the untried measure, although their hands are also to be tied by it for the same term.

It involves a monopoly, which affects the equal rights of every citizen.

It leads to a penal regulation, perhaps capital punishments, one of the most solemn acts of sovereign authority.

From this view of the power of incorporation exercised in the bill, it could never be deemed an accessory or subaltern power, to be deduced by implication, as a means of executing another power; it was in its nature a distinct, an independent and substantive prerogative, which not being enumerated in the Constitution, could never have been meant to be included in it, and not being included, could never be rightfully exercised.

He here adverted to a distinction, which he said had not been sufficiently kept in view, between a power necessary and proper for the Government or Union, and a power necessary and proper for executing the enumerated powers. In the latter case, the powers included in the enumerated powers were not expressed, but to be drawn from the nature of each. In the former, the powers composing the Government were expressly enumerated. This constituted the peculiar nature of the Government; no power, therefore, not enumerated could be inferred from the general nature of Government. Had the power of making treaties, for example, been omitted, however necessary it might have been, the defect could only have been lamented, or supplied by an amendment of the Constitution.

But the proposed Bank could not even be called necessary to the Government; at most it could be but convenient. Its uses to the Government could be supplied by keeping the taxes a little in advance; by loans from individuals; by the other Banks, over which the Government would have equal command; nay greater, as it might grant or refuse to these the privilege (a free and irrevocable gift to the proposed Bank) of using their notes in the Federal revenue.

He proceeded next to the contemporary expositions given to the Constitution.

The defence against the charge founded on the want of a bill of rights pre-supposed, he said, that the powers not given were retained; and that those given were not to be extended by remote implications. On any other supposition, the power of Congress to abridge the freedom of the press, or the rights of conscience, &c., could not have been disproved.

The explanations in the State Conventions all turned on the same fundamental principle, and on the principle that the terms necessary and proper gave no additional powers to those enumerated.

[Here he read sundry passages from the Debates of the Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina Conventions, showing the grounds on which the Constitution had been vindicated by its principal advocates, against a dangerous latitude of its powers, charged on it by its opponents.]

He did not undertake to vouch for the accuracy or authenticity of the publications which he quoted. He thought it probable that the sentiments delivered might, in many instances, have been mistaken, or imperfectly noted; but the complexion of the whole, with what he himself and many others must recollect, fully justified the use he had made of them.

The explanatory declarations and amendments accompanying the ratifications of the several States formed a striking evidence, wearing the same complexion. He referred those who might doubt on the subject, to the several acts of ratification.

The explanatory amendments proposed by Congress themselves, at least, would be good authority with them; all these renunciations of power proceeded on a rule of construction, excluding the latitude now contended for. These explanations were the more to be respected, as they had not only been proposed by Congress, but ratified by nearly three-fourths of the States. He read several of the articles proposed, remarking particularly on the 11th and 12th; the former, as guarding against a latitude of interpretation; the latter, as excluding every source of power not within the Constitution itself.

With all this evidence of the sense in which the Constitution was understood and adopted, will it not be said, if the bill should pass, that its adoption was brought about by one set of arguments, and that it is now administered under the influence of another set? and this reproach will have the keener sting, because it is applicable to so many individuals concerned in both the adoption and administration.

In fine, if the power were in the Constitution, the immediate exercise of it cannot be essential; if not there, the exercise of it involves the guilt of usurpation, and establishes a precedent of interpretation levelling all the barriers which limit the powers of the General Government, and protect those of the State Governments. If the point be doubtful only, respect for ourselves, who ought to shun the appearance of precipitancy and ambition; respect for our successors, who ought not lightly to be deprived of the opportunity of exercising the rights of legislation; respect for our constituents who have had no opportunity of making known their sentiments, and who are themselves to be bound down to the measure for so long a period; all these considerations require that the irrevocable decision should at least be suspended until another session.

It appeared on the whole, he concluded, that the power exercised by the bill was condemned by the silence of the Constitution; was condemned by the rule of interpretation arising out of the Constitution; was condemned by its tendency to destroy the main characteristic of the Constitution; was condemned by the expositions of the friends of the Constitution, whilst depending before the public; was condemned by the apparent intention of the parties which ratified the Constitution; was condemned by the explanatory amendments proposed by Congress themselves to the Constitution; and he hoped it would receive its final condemnation by the vote of this House.

FEBRUARY 8.—BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

Mr. Madison observed, that the present is a question which ought to be conducted with moderation and candor; and, therefore, there is no occasion to have recourse to those tragic representations which have been adduced. Warmth and passion should be excluded from the discussion of a subject which ought to depend on the cool dictates of reason for its decision.

Adverting to the observation of Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, “that it would be a deplorable thing for the Senate of the United States to have fallen on a decision which violates the Constitution,” he inquired, What does the reasoning of the gentleman tend to show but this, that from respect to the Senate this House ought to sanction their decisions? And from hence it will follow, that the President of the United States ought, out of respect to both, to sanction their joint proceedings; but he could remind the gentleman of his holding different sentiments on another occasion.

Mr. M. then enlarged on the exact balance or equipoise contemplated by the Constitution, to be observed and maintained between the several branches of Government; and showed, that except this idea was preserved, the advantages of different independent branches would be lost, and their separate deliberations and determinations be entirely useless.

In describing a corporation, he observed, that the powers proposed to be given are such as do not exist antecedent to the existence of the corporation; these powers are very extensive in their nature, and to which a principle of perpetuity may be annexed.

He waived a reply to Mr. Vining’s observations on the common law, [in which that gentleman had been lengthy and minute, in order to invalidate Mr. Madison’s objections to the power proposed to be given to the Bank, to make rules and regulations, not contrary to law.] Mr. M. said, the question would involve a very lengthy discussion; and other objects more intimately connected with the subject remained to be considered.

The power of granting charters, he observed, is a great and important power, and ought not to be exercised unless we find ourselves expressly authorized to grant them. Here he dilated on the great and extensive influence that incorporated societies had on public affairs in Europe. They are powerful machines, which have always been found competent to effect objects on principles in a great measure independent of the people.

He argued against the influence of the precedent to be established by the bill; for though it has been said, that the charter is to be granted only for a term of years, yet he contended, that granting the powers on any principle is granting them in perpetuum; and assuming this right on the part of the Government involves the assumption of every power whatever.

Noticing the arguments in favor of the bill, he said, it had been observed, that “Government necessarily possesses every power.” However true this idea may be in the theory, he denied that it applied to the Government of the United States.

Here he read the restrictive clause in the Constitution; and then observed, that he saw no pass over this limit.

The preamble to the Constitution, said he, has produced a new mine of power; but this is the first instance he had heard of, in which the preamble has been adduced for such a purpose. In his opinion, the preamble only states the objects of the Confederation, and the subsequent clauses designate the express powers by which those objects are to be obtained; and a mean is proposed through which to acquire those that may be found still requisite, more fully to effect the purposes of the Confederation.

It is said, “there is a field of legislation yet unexplored.” He had often heard this language; but he confessed he did not understand it. Is there a single blade of grass—is there any property in existence in the United States, which is not subject of legislation, either of the particular States, or of the United States? He contended that the exercise of this power, on the part of the United States, involves, to all intents and purposes, every power which an individual State may exercise. On this principle, he denied the right of Congress to make use of a bank to facilitate the collection of taxes. He did not, however, admit the idea, that the institution would conduce to that object. The bank notes are to be equal to gold and silver, and consequently will be as difficult to obtain as the specie. By means of the objects of trade on which gold and silver are employed, there will be an influx of those articles: but paper being substituted, will fill those channels which would otherwise be occupied by the precious metals. This, experience shows, is the uniform effect of such a substitution.

The right of Congress to regulate trade is adduced as an argument in favor of this of creating a corporation; but what has this bill to do with trade? Would any plain man suppose that this bill had any thing to do with trade?

He noticed the observation respecting the utility of banks to aid the Government with loans. He denied the necessity of the institution to aid the Government in this respect. Great Britain, he observed, did not depend on such institutions; she borrows from various sources.

Banks, it is said, are necessary to pay the interest of the public debt. Then they ought to be established in the places where that interest is paid; but can any man say, that the bank notes will circulate at par in Georgia. From the example in Scotland, we know that they cannot be made equal to specie, remote from the place where they can be immediately converted into coin; they must depreciate in case of a demand for specie; and if there is no moral certainty that the interest can be paid by these bank bills, will the Government be justified in depriving itself of the power of establishing banks in different parts of the Union?

We reason, and often with advantage, from British models; but in the present instance there is a great dissimilarity of circumstances. The bank notes of Great Britain do not circulate universally. To make the circumstances parallel, it ought to have been assumed as a fact, that banks are established in various parts of Great Britain, at which the interest of the national debt is paid; but the fact is, it is only paid in one place.

The clause of the Constitution which has been so often recurred to, and which empowers Congress to dispose of its property, he supposed referred only to the property left at the conclusion of the war, and has no reference to the moneyed property of the United States.

The clause which empowers Congress to pass all laws necessary, &c., has been brought forward repeatedly by the advocates of the bill; he noticed the several constructions of this clause which had been offered. The conclusion which he drew from the commentary of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Gerry,) was, that Congress may do what they please; and recurring to the opinion of that gentleman in 1787, he said the powers of the Constitution were then dark, inexplicable, and dangerous; but now, perhaps, as the result of experience, they are clear and luminous!

The constructions of the Constitution, he asserted, which have been maintained on this occasion, go to the subversion of every power whatever in the several States; but we are told, for our comfort, that the Judges will rectify our mistakes. How are the Judges to determine in the case; are they to be guided in their decisions by the rules of expediency?

It has been asked, that if those minute powers of the Constitution were thought to be necessary, is it supposable that the great and important power on the table was not intended to be given? Mr. M. interpreted this circumstance in a quite different way, viz: if it was thought necessary to specify in the Constitution those minute powers, it would follow that more important powers would have been explicitly granted had they been contemplated.

The Western Territory business, he observed, was a case sui generis, and therefore cannot be cited with propriety. West Point, so often mentioned, he said, was purchased by the United States, pursuant to law, and the consent of the State of New York is supposed, if it has not been expressly granted; but, on any occasion, does it follow that one violation of the Constitution is to be justified by another?

The permanent residence bill, he conceived, was entirely irrelative to the subject; but he conceived it might be justified on truly constitutional principles.

The act vesting in the President of the United States the power of removability has been quoted; he recapitulated, in a few words, his reasons for being in favor of that bill.

The Bank of North America he had opposed, as he considered the institution as a violation of the Confederation. The State of Massachusetts, he recollected, voted with him on that occasion. The Bank of North America was, however, the child of necessity; as soon as the war was over, it ceased to operate as to Continental purposes. But, asked he, are precedents in war to justify violations of private and State rights in a time of peace? And did the United States pass laws to punish the counterfeiting the notes of that bank? They did not, being convinced of the invalidity of any such law; the bank, therefore, took shelter under the authority of the State.

The energetic administration of this Government is said to be connected with this institution. Mr. M. here stated the principles on which he conceived this Government ought to be administered; and added, other gentlemen may have had other ideas on the subject, and may have consented to the ratification of the Constitution on different principles and expectations; but he considered the enlightened opinion and affection of the people the only solid basis for the support of this Government.

Mr. M. then stated his objections to the several parts of the bill. The first article he objected to was the duration. A period of twenty years was, to this country, as a period of a century in the history of other countries; there was no calculating for the events which might take place. He urged the ill policy of granting so long a term, from the experience of the Government in respect to some treaties, which, though found inconvenient, could not now be altered.

The different classes of the public creditors, he observed, were not all put on an equal footing by this bill; but in the bill for the disposal of the Western Territory this had been thought essential. The holders of six per cent. securities will derive undue advantages. Creditors at a distance, and the holders of three per cent. securities, ought to be considered, as the public good is most essentially promoted by an equal attention to the interest of all.

I admit, said he, that the Government ought to consider itself as the trustee of the public on this occasion, and therefore should avail itself of the best disposition of the public property.

In this view of the subject, he objected to the bill, as the public, he thought, ought to derive greater advantages from the institution than those proposed. In case of a universal circulation of the notes of the proposed bank, the profits will be so great that the Government ought to receive a very considerable sum for granting the charter.

There are other defects in the bill, which render it proper and necessary, in my opinion, that it should undergo a revision and amendment before it passes into a law. The power vested by the bill in the Executive to borrow of the bank, he thought was objectionable; and the right to establish subordinate banks ought not to be delegated to any set of men under Heaven.

The public opinion has been mentioned. If the appeal to the public opinion is suggested with sincerity, we ought to let our constituents have an opportunity to form an opinion on the subject.

He concluded by saying, he should move for the previous question.1

POPULATION AND EMIGRATION.1

Both in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, every species derives from nature, a reproductive faculty beyond the demand for merely keeping up its stock: the seed of a single plant is sufficient to multiply it one hundred or a thousand-fold. The animal offspring is never limited to the number of its parents.1

This ordinance of nature is calculated, in both instances, for a double purpose. In both it insures the life of the species, which, if the generative principle had not a multiplying energy, would be reduced in number by every premature destruction of individuals, and by degrees would be extinguished altogether. In the vegetable species, the surplus answers, moreover, the essential purpose of sustaining the herbivorous tribes of animals; as in the animal, the surplus serves the like purpose of sustenance to the carnivorous tribes. A crop of wheat may be reproduced by one tenth of itself. The remaining nine tenths can be spared for the animals which feed on it. A flock of sheep may be continued by a certain proportion of its annual increase. The residue is the bounty of nature to the animals which prey on that species.

Man who preys both on the vegetable and animal species, is himself a prey to neither. He too possesses the reproductive principle far beyond the degree requisite for the bare continuance of his species.—What becomes of the surplus of human life to which this principle is competent?

It is either, 1^st destroyed by infanticide, as among the Chinese and Lacedemonians; or 2d. it is stifled or starved, as among other nations whose population is commensurate to its food; or 3d. it is consumed by wars and endemic diseases; or 4^th it overflows, by emigration, to places where a surplus of food is attainable.

What may be the greatest ratio of increase of which the human species is susceptible, is a problem difficult to be solved; as well because precise experiments have never been made, as because the result would vary with circumstances distinguishing different situations. It has been computed that under the most favorable circumstances possible, a given number would double itself in ten years. What has actually happened in this country is a proof, that nature would require for the purpose, a less period than twenty years. We shall be safe in averaging the surplus at five per cent.1

According to this computation, Great Britain and Ireland, which contain about ten millions of people, are capable of producing annually for emigration, no less than five hundred thousand; France, whose population amounts to twenty-five millions, no less than one million two hundred and fifty thousand; and all Europe, stating its numbers at one hundred and fifty millions, no less than seven and a half millions.

It is not meant that such a surplus could, under any revolution of circumstances, suddenly take place: yet no reason occurs why an annual supply of human, as well as other animal life, to any amount not exceeding the multiplying faculty, would not be produced in one country, by a regular and commensurate demand of another. Nor is it meant that if such a redundancy of population were to happen in any particular country, an influx of it beyond a certain degree ought to be desired by any other, though within that degree, it ought to be invited by a country greatly deficient in its population. The calculation may serve, nevertheless, by placing an important principle in striking view, to prepare the way for the following positions and remarks.

First. Every country, whose population is full, may annually spare a proportion of its inhabitants, like a hive of bees its swarm, without any diminution of its number: nay a certain proportion must, necessarily, be either spared, or destroyed, or kept out of existence.1

Secondly. It follows, moreover, from this multiplying faculty of human nature, that a nation, sparing or losing more than its proper surplus, the level must soon be restored by the internal resources of life.

Thirdly. Emigrations may augment the population of the country permitting them. The commercial nations of Europe, parting with emigrants, to America, are examples. The articles of consumption demanded from the former, have created employment for an additional number of manufactures. The produce remitted from the latter, in the form of raw materials, has had the same effect—whilst imports and exports of every kind, have multiplied European merchants and mariners. Where the settlers have doubled every twenty or twenty-five years, as in the United States, the increase of products and consumption in the new country, and consequently of employment and people in the old, has had a corresponding rapidity.

Of the people of the United States, nearly three millions are of British descent.1 The British population has notwithstanding increased within the period of our establishment. It was the opinion of the famous Sir Josiah Child, that every man in the British Colonies found employment, and of course, subsistence, for four persons at home. According to this estimate, as more than half a million of the adult males in the United States equally contribute employment at this time to British subjects, there must at this time be more than two millions of British subjects subsisting on the fruits of British emigrations. This result, however, seems to be beyond the real proportion. Let us attempt a less vague calculation. The value of British imports into the United States including British freight, may be stated at about fifteen millions of dollars. Deduct two millions for foreign articles coming through British hands; there remain thirteen millions. About half our exports, valued at ten millions of dollars, are remitted to that nation. From the nature of the articles, the freight cannot be less than three millions of dollars; of which about one fifth1 being the share of the United States, there is to be added to the former remainder, two millions four hundred thousand. The profit accruing from the articles as materials or auxiliaries for manufactures, is probably at least fifty per cent. or five millions of dollars.

The three sums make twenty millions four hundred thousand dollars, call them in round numbers twenty millions.—The expence of supporting a labouring family in Great-Britain, as computed by Sir John Sinclair, on six families containing thirty-four persons, averages £.4: 12: 10½ sterling, or about twenty dollars a head. As his families were of the poorer class, and the subsistence a bare competency, let twenty-five per cent. be added, making the expence about twenty-five dollars a head, dividing twenty millions by this sum, we have eight hundred thousand for the number of British persons whose subsistence may be traced to emigration for its source; or allowing eight shillings sterling a week, for the support of a workman, we have two hundred sixteen thousand three hundred forty-five, of that class, for the number derived from that source.

This lesson of fact, which merits the notice, of every commercial nation, may be enforced by a more general view of the subject.

The present imports of the United States, adding to the first cost, &c, one half the freight, as the reasonable share of foreign nations, may be stated at twenty-five millions of dollars. Deducting five millions on account of East-India articles, there remain in favor of Europe, twenty millions of dollars. The foreign labour incorporated with such part of our exports as are subjects or ingredients for manufactures, together with half the export freight, is probably not of less value than fifteen millions of dollars. The two sums together make thirty-five millions of dollars, capable of supporting two hundred, thirty-three thousand three hundred thirty-three families of six persons each: or three hundred seventy-eight thousand and six hundred and five men, living on eight shillings sterling a week.

The share of this benefit, which each nation is to enjoy, will be determined by many circumstances. One that must have a certain and material influence, will be, the taste excited here for their respective products and fabrics. This influence has been felt in all its force by the commerce of Great-Britain, as the advantage originated in the emigration from that country to this; among the means of retaining it, will not be numbered a restraint on emigrations. Other nations, who have to acquire their share in our commerce, are still more interested in aiding their other efforts, by permitting, and even promoting emigrations to this country, as fast as it may be disposed to welcome them. The space left by every ten or twenty thousand emigrants will be speedily filled by a surplus of life that would otherwise be lost. The twenty thousand in their new country, calling for the manufactures and productions required by their habits, will employ and sustain ten thousand persons in their former country, as a clear addition to its stock. In twenty or twenty-five years, the number so employed and added, will be twenty thousand. And in the mean time, example and information will be diffusing the same taste among other inhabitants here, and proportionately extending employment and population there.

Fourthly. Freedom of emigration is due to the general interests of humanity. The course of emigrations being always, from places where living is more difficult, to places where it is less difficult, the happiness of the emigrant is promoted by the change: and as a more numerous progeny is another effect of the same cause, human life is at once made a greater blessing, and more individuals are created to partake of it.

The annual expence of supporting the poor in England amounts to more than one million and a half sterling.1 The number of persons, subsisting themselves not more than six months in the year, is computed at one million two hundred sixty eight thousand, and the number of beggars at forty eight thousand. In France, it has been computed that seven millions of men women and children live one with another, on twenty-five livres, which is less than five dollars a year. Every benevolent reader will make his own reflections.

Fifthly. It may not be superfluous to add, that freedom of emigration is favorable to morals. A great proportion of the vices which distinguish crowded from thin settlements, are known to have their rise in the facility of illicit intercourse between the sexes, on one hand, and the difficulty of maintaining a family, on the other. Provide an outlet for the surplus population, and marriages will be increased in proportion. Every four or five emigrants will be the fruit of a legitimate union which would not otherwise have taken place.

Sixthly. The remarks which have been made, though in many respects little applicable to the internal situation of the United States, may be of use as far as they tend to prevent mistaken and narrow ideas on an important subject. Our country being populated in different degrees in different parts of it, removals from the more compact to the more spare or vacant districts are continually going forward—The object of these removals is evidently to exchange a less easy for a more easy subsistence. The effect of them must therefore be to quicken the aggregate population of our country. Considering the progress made in some situations towards their natural complement of inhabitants, and the fertility of others, which have made little or no progress, the probable difference in their respective rates of increase is not less than as three in the former to five in the latter. Instead of lamenting then a loss of three human beings to Connecticut, Rhode Island, or New Jersey, the Philanthropist, will rejoice that five will be gained to New York, Vermont or Kentucky; and the patriot will be not less pleased that two will be added to the citizens of the United States.

Philadelphia, Nov. 19, 1791.

CONSOLIDATION.1

Much has been said, and not without reason, against a consolidation of the States into one government. Omitting lesser objections, two consequences would probably flow from such a change in our political system, which justify the cautions used against it. First, it would be impossible to avoid the dilemma, of either relinquishing the present energy and responsibility of a single executive magistrate, for some plural substitute, which by dividing so great a trust might lessen the danger of it; or suffering so great an accumulation of powers in the hands of that officer, as might by degrees transform him into a monarch. The incompetency of one Legislature to regulate all the various objects belonging to the local governments, would evidently force a transfer of many of them to the executive department; whilst the increasing splendour and number of its prerogatives supplied by this source, might prove excitements to ambition too powerful for a sober execution of the elective plan, and consequently strengthen the pretexts for an hereditary designation of the magistrate. Second, were the state governments abolished, the same space of country that would produce an undue growth of the executive power, would prevent that controul on the Legislative body, which is essential to a faithful discharge of its trust, neither the voice nor the sense of ten or twenty millions of people, spread through so many latitudes as are comprehended within the United States, could ever be combined or called into effect, if deprived of those local organs, through which both can now be conveyed. In such a state of things, the impossibility of acting together, might be succeeded by the inefficacy of partial expressions of the public mind, and at length, by a universal silence and insensibility, leaving the whole government to that self directed course, which, it must be owned, is the natural propensity of every government.

But if a consolidation of the states into one government be an event so justly to be avoided, it is not less to be desired, on the other hand, that a consolidation should prevail in their interests and affections; and this, too, as it fortunately happens, for the very reasons, among others, which lie against a government consolidation. For, in the first place, in proportion as uniformity is found to prevail in the interests and sentiments of the several states, will be the practicability of accommodating Legislative regulations to them, and thereby of withholding new and dangerous prerogatives from the executive. Again, the greater the mutual confidence and affection of all parts of the Union, the more likely they will be to concur amicably, or to differ with moderation, in the elective designation of the chief magistrate; and by such examples, to guard and adorn the vital principle of our republican constitution. Lastly, the less the supposed difference of interests, and the greater the concord and confidence throughout the great body of the people, the more readily must they sympathize with each other, the more seasonably can they interpose a common manifestation of their sentiments, the more certainly will they take the alarm at usurpation or oppression, and the more effectually will they consolidate their defence of the public liberty.

Here then is a proper object presented, both to those who are most jealously attached to the separate authority reserved to the states, and to those who may be more inclined to contemplate the people of America in the light of one nation. Let the former continue to watch against every encroachment, which might lead to a gradual consolidation of the states into one government. Let the latter employ their utmost zeal, by eradicating local prejudices and mistaken rivalships, to consolidate the affairs of the states into one harmonious interest; and let it be the patriotic study of all, to maintain the various authorities established by our complicated system, each in its respective constitutional sphere; and to erect over the whole, one paramount Empire of reason, benevolence, and brotherly affection.1

PUBLIC OPINION.1

Public opinion sets bounds to every government, and is the real sovereign in every free one.

As there are cases where the public opinion must be obeyed by the government; so there are cases, where not being fixed, it may be influenced by the government. This distinction, if kept in view, would prevent or decide many debates on the respect due from the government to the sentiments of the people.

In proportion as government is influenced by opinion, it must be so, by whatever influences opinion. This decides the question concerning a Constitutional Declaration of Rights, which requires an influence on government, by becoming a part of public opinion.

The larger a country, the less easy for its real opinion to be ascertained, and the less difficult to be counterfeited; when ascertained or presumed, the more respectable it is in the eyes of individuals.—This is favorable to the authority of government. For the same reason, the more extensive a country, the more insignificant is each individual in his own eyes.—This may be unfavorable to liberty.

Whatever facilitates a general intercourse of sentiments, as good roads, domestic commerce, a free press, and particularly a circulation of newspapers through the entire body of the people, and Representatives going from, and returning among every part of them, is equivalent to a contraction of territorial limits, and is favorable to liberty, where these may be too extensive.

MONEY.1

(Observations written posterior to the circular Address of Congress in Sept. 1779, and prior to their Act of March, 1780.)2

It has been taken for an axiom in all our reasonings on the subject of finance, that supposing the quantity and demand of things vendible in a country to remain the same, their price will vary according to the variation in the quantity of the circulating medium; in other words, that the value of money will be regulated by its quantity. I shall submit to the judgment of the public some considerations which determine to reject the proposition as founded in error. Should they be deemed not absolutely conclusive, they seem at least to show that it is liable to too many exceptions and restrictions to be taken for granted as a fundamental truth.

If the circulating medium be of universal value as specie, a local increase or decrease of its quantity, will not, whilst a communication subsists with other countries, produce a corresponding rise or fall in its value. The reason is obvious. When a redundancy of universal money prevails in any one country, the holders of it know their interest too well to waste it in extravagant prices, when it would be worth so much more to them elsewhere. When a deficiency happens, those who hold commodities, rather than part with them at an undervalue in one country, would carry them to another. The variation of prices, in these cases, cannot therefore exceed the expence and insurance of transportation.

Suppose a country totally unconnected with Europe, or with any other country, to possess specie in the same proportion to circulating property that Europe does; prices there would correspond with those in Europe. Suppose that so much specie were thrown into circulation as to make the quantity exceed the proportion of Europe tenfold, without any change in commodities or in the demand for them; as soon as such an augmentation had produced its effect, prices would rise tenfold; or which is the same thing, money would be depreciated tenfold. In this state of things, suppose again, that a free and ready communication were opened between this country and Europe, and that the inhabitants of the former, were made sensible of the value of their money in the latter; would not its value among themselves immediately cease to be regulated by its quantity, and assimilate itself to the foreign value?

Mr. Hume in his discourse on the balance of trade supposes, “that if four fifths of all money in Britain were annihilated in one night, and the nation reduced to the same condition, in this particular, as in the reign of the Harrys and Edwards, that the price of all labour and commodities would sink in proportion, and everything be sold as cheap as in those ages: That, again, if all the money in Britain were multiplied five-fold in one night, a contrary effect would follow.” This very ingenious writer seems not to have considered that in the reign of the Harrys and Edwards, the state of prices in the circumjacent nations corresponded with that of Britain; whereas in both of his suppositions, it would be no less than four fifths different. Imagine that such a difference really existed, and remark the consequence. Trade is at present carried on between Britain and the rest of Europe at a profit of 15 or 20 per cent. Were that profit raised to 400 per cent. would not their home market, in case of such a fall of prices, be so exhausted by exportation—and in case of such a rise of prices, be so overstocked with foreign commodities, as immediately to restore the general equilibrium. Now, to borrow the language of the same author, “the same causes which would redress the inequality were it to happen, must forever prevent it, without violent external operation.”

The situation of a country connected by commercial intercourse with other countries, may be compared to a single town or province whose intercourse with other towns and provinces results from political connection. Will it be pretended that if the national currency were to be accumulated in a single town or province, so as to exceed its due proportion five or tenfold, a correspondent depreciation would ensue, and every thing be sold five or ten times as dear as in a neighboring town or province?

If the circulating medium be a municipal one, as paper currency, still its value does not depend on its quantity. It depends on the credit of the state issuing it, and on the time of its redemption; and is no otherwise affected by the quantity, than as the quantity may be supposed to endanger or postpone the redemption.

That it depends in part on the credit of the issuer, no one will deny. If the credit of the issuer therefore be perfectly unsuspected, the time of redemption alone will regulate its value.

To support what is here advanced, it is sufficient to appeal to the nature of paper money. It consists of bills or notes of obligation payable in specie to bearer, either on demand or at a future day. Of the first kind is the paper currency of Britain, and hence its equivalence to specie. Of the latter kind is the paper currency of the United States, and hence its inferiority to specie. But if its being redeemable, not on demand but at a future day, be the cause of its inferiority, the distance of that day, and not its quantity, ought to be the measure of that inferiority.

It has been shown that the value of specie does not fluctuate according to the local fluctuations in its quantity. Great Britain, in which there is such an immensity of circulating paper, shews that the value of paper depends as little on its quantity as that of specie, when the paper represents specie payable on demand. Let us suppose that the circulating notes of Great Britain, instead of being payable on demand, were to be redeemed at a future day, at the end of one year for example, and that no interest was due on them. If the same assurance prevailed that at the end of the year they would be equivalent to specie, as now prevails that they are every moment equivalent, would any other effect result from such a change, except that the notes would suffer a depreciation equal to one year’s interest? They would in that case represent, not the nominal sum expressed on the face of them, but the sum remaining after a deduction of one year’s interest. But if when they represent the full nominal sum of specie, their circulation contributes no more to depreciate them, than the circulation of specie itself would do; does it not follow, that if they represented a sum of specie less than the nominal inscription, their circulation ought to depreciate them no more than so much specie, if substituted, would depreciate itself? We may extend the time from one, to five, or to twenty years; but we shall find no other rule of depreciation than the loss of intermediate interest.

What has been here supposed with respect to Great Britain has actually taken place in the United States. Being engaged in a necessary war without specie to defray the expence, or to support paper emissions for that purpose redeemable on demand, and being at the same time unable to borrow, no resource was left, but to emit bills of credit to be redeemed in future. The inferiority of these bills to specie was therefore incident to the very nature of them. If they had been exchangeable on demand for specie, they would have been equivalent to it: as they were not exchangeable on demand they were inferior to it. The degree of their inferiority must consequently be estimated by the time of their becoming exchangeable for specie, that is the time of their redemption.

To make it still more palpable that the value of currency does not depend on its quantity, let us put the case, that Congress had, during the first year of the war, emitted five millions of dollars to be redeemed at the end of ten years: that, during the second year of the war, they had emitted ten millions more, but with due security that the whole fifteen millions should be redeemed in five years; that during the two succeeding years, they had augmented the emissions to one hundred millions, but from the discovery of some extraordinary sources of wealth, had been able to engage for the redemption of the whole sum in one year. It is asked, whether the depreciation, under these circumstances, would have increased as the quantity of money increased—or whether on the contrary, the money would not have risen in value, at every accession to its quantity?

It has indeed happened, that a progressive depreciation of our currency has accompanied its growing quantity; and to this is probably owing in a great measure the prevalence of the doctrine here opposed. When the fact however is explained, it will be found to coincide perfectly with what has been said. Every one must have taken notice that, in the emissions of Congress, no precise time has been stipulated for their redemption, nor any specific provision made for that purpose. A general promise entitling bearer to so many dollars of metal as the paper bills express, has been the only basis of their credit. Every one therefore has been left to his own conjectures as to the time the redemption would be fulfilled; and as every addition made to the quantity in circulation, would naturally be supposed to remove to a proportionally greater distance the redemption of the whole mass, it could not happen otherwise than that every additional emission would be followed by a further depreciation.

In like manner has the effect of a distrust of public credit, the other source of depreciation, been erroneously imputed to the quantity of money. The circumstances under which our early emissions were made, could not but strongly concur with the futurity of their redemption, to debase their value. The situation of the United States resembled that of an individual engaged in an expensive undertaking, carried on, for want of cash, with bonds and notes secured on an estate to which his title was disputed; and who had besides, a combination of enemies employing every artifice to disparage that security. A train of sinister events, during the early stages of the war likewise contributed to increase the distrust of the public ability to fulfill their engagements. Before the depreciation arising from this cause was removed by success of our arms, and our alliance with France, it had drawn so large a quantity into circulation, that the quantity soon after begat a distrust of the public disposition to fulfill their engagements; as well as new doubts, in timid minds, concerning the issue of the contest. From that period, this cause of depreciation has been incessantly operating. It has first conduced to swell the amount of necessary emissions, and from that very amount has derived new force and efficacy to itself. Thus, a further discredit of our money has necessarily followed the augmentation of its quantity; but every one must perceive, that it has not been the effect of the quantity, considered in itself, but considered as an omen of public bankruptcy.1

Whether the money of a country, then, be gold and silver, or paper currency, it appears that its value depends on the general proportion of gold and silver, to the circulating property throughout all countries having free communication. If the latter, it depends on the credit of the state issuing it, and the time at which it is to become equal to gold and silver.

Every circumstance which has been found to accelerate the depreciation of our currency naturally resolves itself into these general principles. The spirit of monopoly hath affected it in no other way than by creating an artificial scarcity of commodities wanted for public use, the consequence of which has been an increase of their price, and of the necessary emissions. Now it is this increase of emissions which has been shewn to lengthen the supposed period of their redemption, and to foster suspicions of public credit. Monopolies destroy the natural relation between money and commodities; but it is by raising the value of the latter, not by debasing that of the former. Had our money been gold or silver, the same prevalence of monopoly would have had the same effect on prices and expenditures; but these would not have had the same effect on the value of money.

The depreciation of our money has been charged on misconduct in the purchasing departments; but this misconduct must have operated in the same manner as the spirit of monopoly. By unnecessarily raising the price of articles required for the public use, it has swelled the amount of necessary emissions, on which has depended the general opinion concerning the time and the probability of their redemption.

The same remark may be applied to the deficiency of imported commodities. The deficiency of these commodities has raised the price of them; the rise of their price has increased the emissions for purchasing them; and with the increase of emissions, have increased the suspicions concerning their redemption.

Those who consider the quantity of money as the criterion of its value, compute the intrinsic depreciation of our currency by dividing the whole mass by the supposed necessary medium of circulation. Thus supposing the medium necessary for the United States to be 30,000,000. dollars, and the circulating emissions to be 200,000,000, the intrinsic difference between paper and specie will be nearly as 7 for 1. If its value depends on the time of its redemption, as hath been above maintained, the real difference will be found to be considerably less. Suppose the period necessary for its redemption to be 18 years, as seems to be understood by Congress; 100 dollars of paper 18 years hence will be equal in value to 100 dollars of specie; for at the end of that term, 100 dollars of specie may be demanded for them. They must consequently at this time be equal to as much specie as, with compound interest, will amount, in that number of years, to 100 dollars. If the interest of the money be rated at 5 per cent. this present sum of specie will be about 41½ dollars. Admit, however the use of money to be worth 6 per cent. about 35 dollars will then amount in 18 years to 100. 35 dollars of specie therefore is at this time equal to 100 of paper; that is, the man who would exchange his specie for paper at this discount, and lock it in his desk for 18 years, would get 6 per cent. for his money. The proportion of 100 to 35 is less than 3 to 1. The intrinsic depreciation of our money therefore, according to this rule of computation, is less than 3 to 1; instead of 7 to 1, according to the rule espoused in the circular address, or of 30 or 40 to 1, according to its currency in the market.

I shall conclude with observing, that if the preceding principles and reasoning be just, the plan on which our domestic loans have been obtained, must have operated in a manner directly contrary to what was intended. A loan office certificate differs in nothing from a common bill of credit, except in its higher denomination, and the interest allowed on it; and the interest is allowed, merely as a compensation to the lender, for exchanging a number of small bills, which being easily transferable, are most convenient, for a single one so large as not to be transferable in ordinary transactions. As the certificates, however, do circulate in many of the more considerable transactions, it may justly be questioned, even on the supposition that the value of money depended on its quantity, whether the advantage to the public from the exchange, would justify the terms of it. But dismissing this consideration, I ask whether such loans do in any shape, lessen the public debt, and thereby render the discharge of it less suspected or less remote? Do they give any new assurance that a paper dollar will be one day equal to a silver dollar, or do they shorten the distance of that day? Far from it: The certificates continue a part of the public debt no less than the bills of credit exchanged for them, and have an equal claim to redemption within the general period; nay, are to be paid off long before the expiration of that period, with bills of credit, which will thus be returned into the general mass, to be redeemed along with it. Were these bills, therefore, not to be taken out of circulation at all, by means of the certificates, not only the expence of offices for exchanging, re-exchanging and annually paying the interest, would be avoided; but the whole sum of interest would be saved, which must make a formidable addition to the public emissions, protract the period of their redemption, and proportionately increase their depreciation. No expedient could perhaps have been devised more preposterous and unlucky. In order to relieve public credit sinking under the weight of an enormous debt, we invent new expenditures. In order to raise the value of our money, which depends on the time of its redemption, we have recourse to a measure which removes its redemption to a more distant day. Instead of paying off the capital to the public creditors, we give them an enormous interest to change the name of the bit of paper which expresses the sum due to them; and think it a piece of dexterity in finance, by emitting loan-office certificates, to elude the necessity of emitting bills of credit.

[1]It was decided against him by a vote of 39 to 20.

TO EDMUND PENDLETON.

Philada, Feby 13, 1791.

Dear Sir

Since the receipt of your favor of the 15th Jany, I have had the further pleasure of seeing your valuable observations on the Bank, more at length, in your communications to Mr. White. The subject has been decided, contrary to your opinion, as well my own, by large majorities in both Houses, and is now before the President.1 The power of incorporating cannot by any process of safe reasoning, be drawn within the meaning of the Constitution as an appurtenance of any express power, and it is not pretended that it is itself an express power. The arguments in favor of the measure, rather increased my dislike to it because they were founded on remote implications, which strike at the very essence of the Govt as composed of limited & enumerated powers. The Plan is moreover liable to a variety of other objections which you have so judiciously developed.

The Excise is not yet returned by the Senate. It has undergone sundry alterations in that House, but none that affect its principle or will affect its passage. In many respects it is displeasing to me, and a greater evil than a direct tax. But the latter wd. not be listened to in Congs and wd perhaps be not less offensive to the ears of the people at large, particularly in the Eastern part of the Union. The Bill contains, as you would wish, an optional clause permitting the owners of Country stills to pay the tax on their capacity, or to keep an acct of the liquors actually distilled, and pay according to that & no more.

The Bill for admitting Kentucky has passed into a law, and another for extending the privileges to Vermont who is knocking at the door for it, has come from the Senate and will not be opposed in the House of Reps. The Bill for selling the Public lands, has made some progress & I hope will go through. The fate of the Militia & several other important Bills is problematical at the present Session which will expire on the 4th of next month.

With the sincerest affection I am Dear Sir, mo: respectfully yours.

The inclosed paper I observe has a sketch of some of the argts. agst the Bank. They are extremely mutilated, and in some instances perverted, but will give an idea of the turn which the question took.

TO AMBROSE MADISON.1

Philada March 2d, 1791.

Dear brother

Tomorrow will put an end to our existence. Much of the business has been laid over to the next session which is to be held the 4th Monday in Ocr. The most important bill lately past is that for establishing a Bank. You will see in the inclosed gazetteer the ground on which it was attacked & defended. The bill remained with the President to the last moment allowed him, and was then signed by him. Since the passage of that Bill one has passed for taking Alexa into the district for the seat of Gov’t if the Presidt finds it convenient. This is a confirmation of that measure & passed by a very large majority.

I enclose the report of the Secy at War on Col: Taylor’s case which you will hand to him. The grounds on which the claim is objected to are stated. The Report has not been decided on by Congs; and having but very lately been made lies over to another session. I can not yet fix on the time of my setting out for Virga. I shall at least wait till the Roads are safer than at present & am not sure that I may not make a trip into New England before I return. I have often projected this gratification to my curiosity, and do not foresee a more convenient opportunity, especially if I should be able to form a party for the purpose. I shall write you again before I make any definite arrangements. Remember me affectly to all.

I have recd yours of the 20th Feby from Falmouth. The young lady you mention has I find connections of the best sort in this place.

TO AMBROSE MADISON.1

Philada April 11, 1791.

Dear brother

I herewith inclose by a conveyance to Fredericksburg three pamphlets as requested by my father, the other by yourself: to which is added a list of the seeds &c sent lately to Mr Maury, according to the information contained in my last. I have not heard from you in answer to my letter on the subject of Tobacco. I have informed Mr Maury of my request to you to forward a few of the Hhds to this place, and have requested him to ship the rest as usual to his broker in Liverpool. I shall set out at a pretty early day from this place, and shall in company with Mr. Jefferson go at least as far northwardly as Lake George, with which route I shall be able to make some private business partly my own, and partly that of a friend coincide. Whether I shall afterwards extend my route Eastwardly I do not yet decide. I have not yet made any purchase of sugar or coffee as desired by my father. Both articles have fallen, the former is however still high, the latter is tolerably cheap. I shall look at some from the Isle of France today or tomorrow, and shall probably before I leave this provide a supply of that article for the family to whom be so good as to remember me affecly.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

N. York May 1, 1791.

Dear Sir

Finding on my arrival at Princeton that both Docr. Witherspoon & Smith had made excursions on the vacation, I had no motive to detain me there; and accordingly pursuing my journey I arrived here the day after I left Philada. my first object was to see Dorhman. He continues to wear the face of honesty, and to profess much anxiety to discharge the claims of Mazzei; but acknowledges that all his moveable property has been brought under such fetters by late misfortunes that no part of it can be applied to that use. His chief resource consisted of money in London which has been attached, improperly as he says, by his brother. This calamity brought on him a protest of his bills, and this a necessity of making a compromise founded on a hypothecation of his effects. His present reliance is on an arrangement which appeals to the friendship of his brother, and which he supposes his brother will not decline when recovered from the misapprehensions which led him to lay his hands on the property in London. A favorable turn of fortune may perhaps open a prospect of immediate aid to Mazzei, but as far as I can penetrate, he ought to count but little on any other resource than the ultimate security of the Western township. I expect to have further explanations however from Dorhman, and may then be better able to judge. I have seen Freneau and given him a line to you.1 He sets out for Philada. today or tomorrow, though it is not improbable that he may halt in N. Jersey. He is in the habit I find of translating the Leyden Gazette and consequently must be fully equal to the task you had allotted for him. He had supposed that besides this degree of skill, it might be expected that he should be able to translate with equal propriety into French; and under this idea, his delicacy had taken an insuperable objection to the undertaking. Being now set right as to this particular, and being made sensible of the advantages of Philada. over N. Jersey for his private undertaking, his mind is taking another turn, and if the scantiness of his capital should not be a bar, I think he will establish himself in the former. At all events he will give his friends then an opportunity of aiding his decision by their information & counsel. The more I learn of his character talents and principles, the more I should regret his burying himself in the obscurity he had chosen in N. Jersey. It is certain that there is not to be found in the whole catalogue of American Printers, a single name that can approach towards a rivalship.

I send you herewith a copy of Priestley’s answer to Burke which has been reprinted here. You will see by a note page 56 how your idea of limiting the right to bind posterity is germinating under the extravagant doctrines of Burke on that subject. Paine’s answer has not yet been recd here. The moment it can be got Freneau tells me it will be published in Childs’ paper.1 It is said that the pamphlet has been suppressed in England, and that the Author withdrew to France before or immediately after its appearance. This may account for his not sending copies to his friends in this Country.

From conversations which I have casually heard, it appears that among the enormities produced by the spirit of speculation & fraud, a practice is spreading of taking out administration on the effects of deceased soldiers and other claimants leaving no representatives. By this knavery if not prevented a prodigious sum will be unsaved by the Public, and reward the worst of its Citizens. A number of adventurers are already engaged in the pursuit, and as they easily get security as Administrators and as easily get a Commission on the usual suggestion of being creditors, they desire nothing more than to ascertain the name of the party deceased or missing, trusting to the improbability of their being detected or prosecuted by the public. It cannot but have happened & is indeed a fact well understood that the unclaimed dues from the U. S. are of very great amount. What a door is here open, for collusion also if any of the Clerks in the Acct. offices are not proof against the temptation!

We understood in Philada that during the suspension of the Bank Bill in the hands of the President, its partizans here indulged themselves in reflections not very decent. I have reason to believe that the licentiousness of the tongues of speculators & Tories far exceeded anything that was conceived. The meanest motives were charged on him, and the most insolent menaces held over him, if not in the open streets, under circumstances not less marking the character of the party.

In returning a visit to Mr. King yesterday, our conversation fell on the Conduct of G. B. towards the U. S., which he evidently laments as much as he disapproves. He took occasion to let me understand, that altho’ he had been averse to the appearance of precipitancy in our measures, he should readily concur in them after all probability should be over of voluntary relaxations in the measures of the other party, and that the next session of Congress would present such a crisis if nothing to prevent it should intervene. He mentioned also that a young gentleman here (a son of W. Smith now Ch Justice of Canada) gives out, as information from his friends in England that no Minister will be sent to this Country until one shall have previously arrived there. What credit may be due to this person or his informers I do not know. It shews at least that the conversation and expectations which lately prevailed are dying away.

A thought has occurred on the subject of your mechanism for the table, which in my idle situation will supply me with another paragraph, if of no other use.1 The great difficulty incident to your contrivance seemed to be that of supporting the weight of the castor without embarrassing the shortening & lengthening of the moveable radius. Might not this be avoided by suspending the castor by a chain or chord on a radius above, and requiring nothing more of yours than to move the swinging apparatus: thus, A. B. moveable on a shoulder at A would be a necessary brace, and must allow C. D. to pass thro’ it and play from a. to b. as the tongs are shortened or lengthened. The use of C. D. would be to connect F. G. & the tongs, so as to make them move together on the common perpendicular axis. As the distance from C to D must vary with with [sic] the protraction of the tongs, the connecting bar ought to be long accordingly, and pass through witht being fixed to the tongs. Its office would in that state be sufficiently performed. The objections to this plan are the height of the perpendicular axis necessary to render the motion of the castor easy, and to diminish the degree in which it wd mount up at the end of the table. Perhaps the objection may be fatal. 2. The nicety of adjusting the friction of the tongs so as not to be inconvenient to the hand, and be sufficient to stop & hold the castor at any part of the table. In this point of view perhaps a slide on a spring would be better than the tongs. In that case C. D. might be fixed, and not moveable in the brace. By projecting F. G. to H. the castor might be made to swing perpendicularly not at the part of the table least distant, but at ye mean distance from the Center, and the difference between its greatest & least elevation & pressure diminished. But inconveniences of another sort might be increased by this expedient. If the tongs or slide were to be placed not horizontally, but inclining so as to lessen the effect of the pressure of the castor without being less moveable by the hand, the 2d objection might be lessened. It wd in that case be of less consequence to project the upper radius as proposed.

lf1356-06_figure_001 lf1356-06_figure_002

I am afraid you will hardly understand what I have attempted to describe, and I have not time if the thing deserved it, to write the letter over again for the present mail.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

N. York May 12, 1791.

Dear Sir

Your favor of the 9th was recd last evening. To my thanks for the several inclosures I must add a request that the letter to Boynton which came in one of them may be handed to him by one of your servants. The directory will point out his habitation.

I had seen Payne’s pamphlet with the preface of the Philada Editor.2 It immediately occurred that you were brought into the Frontispiece in the manner you explain. But I had not foreseen the particular use made of it by the British partizans. Mr. Adams can least of all complain. Under a mock defence of the Republican Constitutions of his Country, he attacked them with all the force he possessed, and this in a book with his name to it whilst he was the Representative of his Country at a foreign Court. Since he has been the 2d Magistrate in the new Republic, his pen has constantly been at work in the same cause, and tho’ his name has not been prefixed to his anti republican discourses, the author has been as well known as if that formality had been observed. Surely if it be innocent & decent in one servant of the public thus to write attacks agst its Government, it cannot be very criminal or indecent in another to patronize a written defence of the principles on which that Govt is founded. The sensibility of H [ammond]1 & B [ond]2 for the indignity to the Brit. Constt is truly ridiculous. If offence cd be justly taken in that quarter, what would France have a right to say to Burke’s pamphlet and the Countenance given to it & its author, particularly by the King himself? What in fact might not the U. S. say, whose revolution & democratic Governments come in for a large share of the scurrility lavished on those of France?

I do not foresee any objection to the route you propose. I had conversed with Beckley on a trip to Boston &c and still have that in view, but the time in view for starting from this place, will leave room for the previous excursion. Health recreation & curiosity being my objects, I can never be out of my way.3

Not a word of news here. My letters from Virginia say little more than those you had recd. Carrington says the returns have come in pretty thickly of late and warrant the estimate founded on the Counties named to me some time ago. As well as I recollect, these averaged upwards of 8000 souls, and were considered by him as under the general average.

Yrs affectly.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

New York June 23d 1791.

Dear Sir

I received your favor of the 21st yesterday, inclosing post notes for 235 dollars. I shall obtain the bills of Mrs Elsworth4 & the Smith this afternoon and will let you know the amount of them. There is a bill from the Taylor amounting to £6,—7 which I shall pay. The articles for which it is due are in my hands and will be forwarded by the first opportunity. If a good one should fall within your notice, it may be well for you to double the chance of a conveyance by giving a commission for the purpose. I have applied to Rivington for the Book but the only copies in Town seem to be of the 8th Edition. This however is advertised as “enlarged &c by the Author,” who I am told by Berry & Rogers is now living & a correspondent of theirs. It is not improbable therefore that your reason for preferring the 6th Ed: may be stronger in favor of this. Let me know your pleasure on the subject & it shall be obeyed.

I am at a loss what to decide as to my trip to the Eastward. My inclination has not changed, but a journey without a companion, & in the stage which besides other inconveniences travels too rapidly for my purpose, makes me consider whether the next fall may not present a better prospect. My horse is more likely to recover than at the time of your departure. By purchasing another, in case he should get well, I might avoid the Stage, but at an expence not altogether convenient.

You have no doubt seen the French Regulations on the subject of Tobo, which commence hostilities agst the British Navigation Act. Mr. King tells me an attack on Payne has appeared in a Boston paper under the name of Publicola,1 and has an affinity in the stile as well as sentiments to the discourses on Davila. I observed in a late paper here an extract from a Philada pamphlet on the Bank. If the publication has attracted or deserves notice I should be glad of a copy from you. I will write again in a few days, in the mean time remaining,

Yrs mo: affecly.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

New York June 27, 1791.

Dear Sir

By a Capt: Simms who setts off this afternoon in the Stage for Philadelphia I forward the Bundle of Cloaths from the Taylor. His bill is inclosed with that of Mrs Elseworth including the payment to the Smith.

I have seen Col: Smith more than once. He would have opened his budget fully to me, but I declined giving him the trouble. He has written to the President a statement of all his conversations with ye. British Ministry, which will get into your hands of course. He mentioned to me his wish to have them put there in the first instance and your situation on his arrival as an apology for not doing it. From the complexion of the little anecdotes & observations which dropped from him in our interviews I suspect that report has as usual far overrated the importance of what has been confided to him. General professions which mean nothing, and the sending a Minister which can be suspended at pleasure, or which if executed may produce nothing, are the amount of my present guesses.

Mr. Adams seems to be getting faster & faster into difficulties. His attack on Payne, which I have not seen, will draw the public attention to his obnoxious principles, more than everything he has published. Besides this, I observe in McLean’s paper here, a long extract from a sensible letter republished from Poughkeepsie, which gives a very unpopular form to his anti-republican doctrines, and presents a strong contrast of them with a quotation from his letter to Mr. Wythe in 1776.

I am still resting on my oars with respect to Boston. My Horse has had a relapse which made his recovery very improbable. Another favorable turn has taken place, and his present appearance promises tolerably well. But it will be some time before he can be used, if he should suffer no other check. Adieu —Mad. MSS.

Yrs

TO JAMES MADISON.

N. York July 2d. 1791.

Hond. Sir

Your favor of the 29th of May never came to hand till yesterday when it fell in with me at this place. My brother’s of nearly the same date had done so a few days before. My answer to his went by the last mail. I refer to it for the information yours requests. I had indeed long before advised you both to ship to Leiper all the good Tobacco of your crops. It is certainly the best you can do with it.

The tour I lately made with Mr. Jefferson of which I have given the outline to my brother was a very agreeable one, and carried us thro an interesting country new to us both. I postpone the details of our travels till I get home which as I mentioned to my brother will be in Augst. I cannot yet say whether it will be towards the middle or last of the month. It gives me much satisfaction to learn that my mother has so far recovered. I hope her health may continue to mend. You do not mention whether she has been or is to be at any of the Springs—I shall attend to the articles you wish for family use on my way thro’ Philada unless I should meet with them on satisfactory terms here.

The Report in Georgia relating to me is as absolute a falsehood as ever was propagated. So far am I from being concerned in the Yazoo transaction, that from the nature of it, as it has been understood by me, I have invariably considered it as one of the most disgraceful events that have appeared in our public counsels, and such is the opinion which I have ever expressed of it. I do not think it necessary to write to Genl Mathews, because a report of such a nature does not seem to merit a formal contradiction. I wish him to know however that I am sensible of his friendly attention, and will thank Mr. Taylor, when an opportunity offers, to let him know as much.

The latest accounts from abroad are various & contradictory. The most authentic make it probable that there will be no war between England & Russia, and that there will be peace between the latter & the Turks at the expence of the Turks. From a concurrence of information it is probable also that a public minister from G. B. may pretty soon be expected. If He brings powers & dispositions to form proper commercial arrangements, it will be an interesting change in the councils of that nation; especially as an execution of the Treaty of peace must be a preliminary in the business.

The Crops in general thro’ the Country I have passed & heard from are promising. Wheat is selling at Phila. at abt. a dollar a bushel & here in the usual proportion.

Remember me affectly to all, & accept the dutiful respects of your son.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

N. York July 10, 1791.

Dear Sir,

Your favor of the 6th. came to hand on friday. I went yesterday to the person who advertised the Maple Sugar for the purpose of executing your commission on that subject. He tells me that the cargo is not yet arrived from Albany, but is every hour expected; that it will not be sold in parcels of less than 15 or 16 hundred lbs & only at auction, but that the purchasers will of course deal it out in smaller quantities; that a part is grained and a part not; and that the price of the former will probably be regulated by that of good Muscavado which sells at about £5 N. Y. Currency a Ct. I shall probably be at Flushing in two or three days and have an opportunity of executing your other Com̃issions on the spot. In case of disappointment, I shall send the Letter & money to Prince by the best conveyance to be had. The Maple Seed is not arrived. The Birch Bark has been in my hands some days and will be forwarded as you suggested.

The Bank shares have risen as much in the Market here as at Philadelphia. It seems admitted on all hands now that the plan of the institution gives a moral certainty of gain to the Subscribers with scarce a physical possibility of loss. The subscriptions are consequently a mere scramble for so much public plunder which will be engrossed by those already loaded with the spoils of individuals. The event shews what would have been the operation of the plan, if, as originally proposed subscriptions had been limited to the 1st of april and to the favorite species of stock which the Bank Jobbers had monopolized. It pretty clearly appears also in what proportions the public debt lies in the Country. What sort of hands hold it, and by whom the people of the U. S. are to be governed. Of all the shameful circumstances of this business, it is among the greatest to see the members of the Legislature who were most active in pushing this Job openly grasping its emoluments. Schuyler is to be put at the Head of the Directors, if the weight of the N. Y. subscribers can effect it. Nothing new is talked of here. In fact stock-jobbing drowns every other subject. The Coffee-House is in an eternal buzz with the Gamblers.

I have just understood that Freneau is now here & has abandoned his Philada project. From what cause I am wholly unable to determine; unless those who know his talents & hate his political principles should have practiced some artifice for the purpose.

I have given up for this season my trip Eastward. My bilious situation absolutely forbade it. Several lesser considerations also conspired with that objection. I am at present free from a fever but have sufficient evidence, in other shapes that I must adhere to my defensive precautions.

The pamphlet on Weights &c, was put into my hands by Docr Kemp with a view to be forwarded after perusal to you. As I understand it is a duplicate and to be kept by you. Always & mo: affecly.

—Mad. MSS.

Yrs

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

N. York July 13, 1791.

Dear Sir

I received last evening your very kind enquiries after my health. My last will have informed you of the state of it then. I continue to be incommoded by several different shapes of the bile; but not in a degree that can now be called serious. If the present excessive heat should not augment the energy of the cause, I consider myself as in a good way to get rid soon of its effects.

Beckley has just got back from his Eastern trip. He says that the partizans of Mr. Adam’s heresies in that quarter are perfectly insignificant in point of number, that particularly in Boston he is become distinguished for his unpopularlity, that Publicola is probably the manufacture of his son out of materials furnished by himself, and that the publication is generally as obnoxious in New England as it appears to be in Pennsylvania. If young adams be capable of giving the dress in which publicola presents himself, it is very probable he may have been made the Editor of his Father’s doctrines. I hardly think the Printer would so directly disavow the fact if Mr. Adams was himself the writer. There is more of method also in the arguments, and much less of clumsiness & heaviness in the style, than characterize his writings. I mentioned to you some time ago an extract from a piece in the Poughkeepsie paper as a sensible comment on Mr. Adams’ doctrines. The whole has since been republished here, and is evidently from a better pen than any of the Anti-publicolas I have seen. In Greenleaf’s paper of to-day is a second letter from the same quarter, which confirms the character I have given of the Author.

We understand here that 800 shares in the Bank, committed by this City to Mr. Constable, have been excluded by the manner in which the business was conducted. that a considerable number from Boston met with the same fate. and that Baltimore has been kept out in toto. It is all charged on the manœuvres of Philada. which is said to have secured a majority of the whole to herself. The disappointed individuals are clamorous of course, and the language of the place marks a general indignation on the subject. If it should turn out that the cards were packed for the purpose of securing the game to Philada or even that more than half the Institution and of course the whole direction of it, have fallen into the hands of that City, some who have been loudest in their plaudits whilst they expected to share in the plunder, will be equally so in sounding the injustice of monopoly, and the danger of undue influence on the Government.

The Packet is not yet arrived. By a vessel arrived yesterday Newspapers are recd. from London which are said to be later than any yet come to hand. I do not find that any particular facts of moment are handed out. The miscellaneous articles come to me thro’ Childs’ paper, which you get sooner than I could rehearse to you. It has been said here by the Anglicans that the President’s message to Congs. on the subject of the commercial disposition of G. B. has been asserted openly by Mr. Pitt to be misrepresentation. and as it would naturally be traced to Govr. Morris it has been suggested that he fell into the hands of the Chevr. Luzerne who had the dexterity to play off his negotiations for French purposes. I have reason to believe that B[eckwith] has had a hand in throwing these things into circulation. I wish you success with all my heart in your efforts for Payne.1 Besides the advantage to him which he deserves, an appointment for him, at this moment would do public good in various ways.

Always & truly yours.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

N. York Aug 4, 1791.

My Dear Sir

It being probable that I shall leave this place early in the ensuing week I drop you an intimation of it, that you may keep back my letters that may fall into your hands for me, or that you might intend to favor me with.

The outward bound Packet for Halifax & London sailed today. The one expected for some time past is not yet arrived, and I do not learn that any foreign news is recd. thro any other channel. Stock & scrip continue to be the sole domestic subjects of conversation. The former has mounted in the late sales above par, from which a superficial inference would be drawn that the rate of interest had fallen below 6 Per Ct. It is a fact however which explains the nature of these speculations, that they are carried on with money borrowed at from Per Ct. a month, to 1 Per Ct. a week.

Adieu Yrs. mo: affecly.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

N. York Aug: 8 1791.

My dear Sir

I take the liberty of putting the inclosed into your hands that in case Col: Lee should have left Philada. the contents may find their way to Col: Fisher who is most interested in them. And I leave it open for the same purpose. The Attorney will be a fit channel in the event of Col: Lee’s departure, for conveying the information.

You will find an allusion to some mysterious cause for a phenomenon in Stocks. It is surmised that the deferred debt is to be taken up at the next session, and some anticipated provision made for it. This may either be an invention of those who wish to sell, or it may be a reality imparted in confidence to the purchasers or smelt out by their sagacity. I have had a hint that something is intended and has dropt from — —1 which has led to this speculation. I am unwilling to credit the fact, untill I have further evidence, which I am in a train of getting if it exists. It is said that packet boats & expresses are again sent from this place to the Southern States, to buy up the paper of all sorts which has risen in the market here. These & other abuses make it a problem whether the system of the old paper under a bad Government, or of the new under a good one, be chargeable with the greater substantial injustice. The true difference seems to be that by the former the few were the victims to the many; by the latter the many to the few. It seems agreed on all hands now that the bank is a certain & gratuitous augmentation of the capitals subscribed, in a proportion of not less than 40 or 50 Per Ct. and if the deferred debt should be immediately provided for in favor of the purchasers of it in the deferred shape, & since the unanimous vote that no change shd. be made in the funding system, my imagination will not attempt to set bounds to the daring depravity of the times. The stock-jobbers will become the pretorian band of the Government, at once its tool & its tyrant; bribed by its largesses, & overawing it by clamours & combinations. Nothing new from abroad. I shall not be in Philada. till the close of the Week.

Adieu. Yrs Mo: affy.—Mad. MSS.

TO JAMES MADISON.

Philada Ocr. 30, 1791.1

Hond Sir

We arrived here yesterday morning was a week, having been obliged to push through the bad weather by the discovery first made at Mount Vernon that the meeting of Congress was a week earlier than was calculated at our setting out. The President had been under the same mistake, and had but just been apprized of it. Many others had equally miscalculated.

Being obliged to attend immediately on my arrival to public business I have not been able to give the attention to yours and that of others which I wished. I have however seen Mr Leiper so far as to learn from him that your Fredericksburg Tobo. is in his hands, and that a shilling or two more may be expected for it than for the preceding shipment. As soon as the sale is made, and I can execute the other commissions you have given me, I will write you an account of the whole. The price of the best Sugars is I find £4—8 Virga currency per Ct and coffee about 1/ do per lb.

The past week has been spent rather in preparations for the business of the present Session of Congs than in the actual commencement of it. You will find what has been done in the inclosed papers.—Mr. Hammond the expected Minister from G. Britain arrived in the last packet & has been here some days. His public character has not yet been announced in form. If any communications have been made by him on the subject of his mission, they are known to the Executive Department alone. I am extremely anxious to know the state of my mothers health which was so unsettled when I left home. I am looking out for the information by every mail. present my dutiful regards to her.—Mad. MSS.

TO ROBERT PLEASANTS.

Philada. Ocr 30, 1791.

Sir

The delay in acknowledging your letter of the 6th June last proceeded from the cause you conjectured. I did not receive it till a few days ago, when it was put into my hands by Mr. James Pemberton, along with your subsequent letter of the 8th August.1

The petition relating to the Militia bill contains nothing that makes it improper for me to present it. I shall therefore readily comply with your desire on that subject. I am not satisfied that I am equally at liberty with respect to the other petition. Animadversions such as it contains, and which the authorized object of the petitioners did not require on the slavery existing in our country, are supposed by the holders of that species of property, to lessen the value by weakening the tenure of it. Those from whom I derive my public station are known by me to be greatly interested in that species of property, and to view the matter in that light. It would seem that I might be chargeable at least with want of candour, if not of fidelity, were I to make use of a situation in which their confidence has placed me to become a volunteer in giving a public wound, as they would deem it, to an interest on which they set so great a value. I am the less inclined to disregard this scruple, as I am not sensible that the event of the petition would in the least depend on the circumstance of its being laid before the House by this or that person.

Such an application as that to our own Assembly on which you ask my opinion, is a subject in various respects, of great delicacy and importance. The consequences of every sort ought to be well weighed by those who would hazard it. From the view under which they present themselves to me, I cannot but consider the application as likely to do harm rather than good. It may be worth your own consideration whether it might not produce successful attempts to withdraw the privilege now allowed to individuals, of giving freedom to slaves. It would at least be likely to clog it with a condition1 that the persons freed should be removed from the Country; there being arguments of great force for such a regulation, and some would concur in it who in general disapprove of the institution of slavery.

I thank you Sir for the friendly sentiments you have expressed towards me; and am with respect and esteem.

Your Obedt. hble Servt.—Mad. MSS.

TO JAMES MADISON.

Philada. Novr. 13, 1791.

Hond. Sir

I recd yesterday a letter from my brother Ambrose which gave me the first information I have had since I left home concerning the state of my mothers health. I am extremely glad to find she had so much mended and hope her health may continue to grow better.

My brother signified to me that Miss Boynton wished a furr instead of a chip hat to be sent her. Unluckily the latter had been bought, packed up, & sent off in a trunk with the other articles, before his letter got to hand. It was consequently too late to make the change. If she wishes the other hat to be procured & forwarded, no time in giving me notice is to be lost, as the progress of the winter will soon put an end to the intercourse with Virginia by water. I have provided all the articles desired by my brother except the shoes for himself, which owing to a variance between the shoemakers & their journeymen on the point of wages, could not be got. His linnen is packed up with the coffee sent you. His crate of ware, will go by itself addressed to the care of Mr. J. Blair. The remainder of his articles are in a Trunk which contains moreover the articles for Mrs. Mason & Fanny; except the Breast pin which has been delayed by the absence of the artist. I must take some private oppy. to send it to my brother W. in Richmond. The trunk is already gone, or will go in a day or two addressed to Mr Maury. Besides the articles abovementioned, I have put into it a parcel of cloaths which I consign to the disposal of my mother—Finding that sugar was not likely to fall, I procured you a supply of that article as well as of coffee. They have both been sent off about a week ago addressed to Mr Maury, and are probably by this time in Fredericksbrg. The quantity of Sugar is 400 lb. and of coffee 150lb, 50lb of it being of the Bourbon sort.

The Nail rods you want are not to be got in the City, and the price of the sheet bags is 2/9 Pa curry a pound, which so far exceeds your limitation, that I declined sending it.—Mr. Leiper has not yet sold your Tobo. he says two Hhds are pretty good; the others very deficient in substance. He speaks favorably of the manner in which the Tobo has been handled & put up, & thinks its value would have been much greater, if it had been tapped lower. In answer to my enquiry as to stemmed Tobo he says the difference will vary from 25 to 33 per Ct. If any should be sent him he recommends care in taking out the stem, so as to tear the leaf as little as possible—your loan-office Certificates have been funded as I learn from Messrs Wister & Ashton your letter arrived in time, and according to the office construction of the law, the defect of liquidation prior to June, did not stand in the way—The six per Cts. I am just told have got up to 24/ in the pound, giving credit till March. If you chuse to sell, you will let me know—as soon as I get in all the bills from those of whom I have purchased the different articles for yourself my brother A &c., I will forward an account of the whole. Mr. Freneau has sent papers to Fredg. for subscribers whose names I brought with me. I must beg you to collect & send us, as soon as possible the other subscriptions in Orange—and get the same done for Culpeper.

The inclosed paper will give you a glance of what is going on in Congress who have not yet entered into the substantial parts of their business. It will also let you know all that I could add as to foreign information.

Yr affectn Son—Mad. MSS.

[1 ]From Freneau’s National Gazette, vol. i., November 21, 1791. The first number of the Gazette appeared October 31, 1791. See also Madison to Jefferson, ante, ii., 246.

[1 ]The multiplying power in some instances, animal as well as vegetable, is astonishing. An animal plant of two seeds produces in 20 years, 1,048,576; and there are plants which bear more than 40,000 seeds. The roe of a codfish is said to contain a million of eggs; mites will supply a thousand in a day; and there are viviparous flies which produce 2000 at once. See Stillingfleet and Bradley’s philosophical account of nature.

[1 ]Emigrants from Europe, enjoying freedom in a climate similar to their own, increase at a rate of five per cent a year. Among Africans suffering or (in the language of some) enjoying slavery in a climate similar to their own, human life has been consumed in an equal ratio. Under all mitigations latterly applied in the British West-Indies, it is admitted that an annual decrease of one per cent. has taken place.—What a comment on the African Trade!

[1 ]The most remarkable instances of swarms of people that have been spared without diminishing the parent stock, are the colonies and colonies of colonies among the antient Greeks. Milentum, which was itself a colony, is reported by Pliny, to have established no less than eighty colonies, on the Hellespont, the Propontis, and the Euxine. Other facts of a like kind are to be found among the Greek historians.

[1 ]Irish is meant to be included.

[1 ]This is stated as the fact is, not as it ought to be. The United States are reasonably entitled to half the freight, if, under regulations, perfectly reciprocal in every channel of navigation, they could acquire that share. According to Lord Sheffield, indeed, the United States are well off, compared with other nations; the tonnage employed in the trade with the whole of them, previous to the American Revolution, having belonged to British subjects, in proportion of more than eleven twelfths. In the year 1660, other nations owned about ¼; in 1700 less than ⅙, in 1725 , in 1750 , in 1774 less than that proportion. What the proportion is now, is not known. If such has been the operation of the British navigation law on other nations, it is our duty, without enquiring into their acquiescence in its monopolizing tendency, to defend ourselves against it, by all the fair and prudent means in our power.

This is admitted to be a very vague estimate. The proportion of our exports which are either necessaries of life or have some profitable connection with manufactures might be pretty easily computed. The actual profit drawn from that proportion is a more difficult task; but if tolerably ascertained and compared with the proportion of such of our imports as are not for mere consumption would present one very interesting view of the commerce of the United States.

[1 ]From Easter 1775 to Easter 1776, was expended the sum of £.1,556,804:6-3 sterling. See Anderson vol. v. p. 275. This well informed writer conjectures the annual expence to be near £.2,000,000 sterling. It is to be regretted that the number and expence of the poor in the United States cannot be contrasted with such statements. The subject well merits research, and would produce the truest eulogium on our country.

[1 ]From The National Gazette, December 5, 1791.

[1 ]

TO HENRY LEE.

Philada. Decr 18th 1791.

My Dear Sir

I have received your favor of the 8th & handed to Freneau the subscriptions inclosed for him. His paper in the opinion here justifies the expectations of his friends and merits the diffusive circulation they have endeavoured to procure it.

I regret that I can administer no balm to the wound given by the first report of our western disaster.2 You will have seen the official account which has gone into all the Newspapers. It does not seem to contain any of the saving circumstances you are so anxious to learn. The loss of blood is not diminished, and that of impression, is as great as the most compleat triumph of the savages can render it. The measures planning for the reparation of the calamity are not yet disclosed. The suspected relation of Indian hostility to the Western Posts, became here as with you, a subject of pretty free conversation. Mr. Hammond has officially disavowed by authority from his Court the imputation of encouraging those hostilities through the Government of Canada. He has also contradicted on his personal conviction, the allegations of like countenance to the hostile proceedings of Bowles in the Southern quarter. Nothing is yet public with respect to his general communications with the Executive. Major Thomas Pinkney is to be Minister at London.

The representation bill is still on hand. The Senate after detaining it a considerable time, and trying sundry improper expedients for making out a ratio of a different aspect from the simple and obvious one proposed to them, at length agreed by the casting voice of the Chair to alter the ratio of 1 for 30,000 to 1 for 33,000. The H of Reps. disagreed tho’ by a bare majority only. The Senate have insisted, and tomorrow will decide the eventual temper of the H of Reps on the subject. Should they be firm enough to adhere, the Senate will probably recede. Should a conference be proposed I auger unfavorably of the issue. The chance will be much bettered if Col. Lee who we hear is on the road, should arrive in time. Whatever the decision of the House of Reps. may be, it will turn on very few votes, possibly on that of the chair.

On the subject of Great Falls, I insist that you do not sacrifice or risk the prospect on my account. Your honor cannot forbid, whilst my poverty continues to require, that you transfer your friendly purpose from me to some other friend, whose resources will better correspond with it. Mine cannot be relied on, and I should be particularly unhappy at being accessory to the danger of one who had been so anxious to be instrumental to my advantage.

Let me beg you to reconsider your resolution, and not to let me stand in the way of your success, which I ought to wish much more on your account, than on my own being on this occasion under particular obligations to you, and on all your affectionate friend.

—Mad. MSS.

[1 ]From The National Gazette, December 19, 1791.

[1 ]From The National Gazette, December 19 and 22, 1791.

[2 ]March 18, 1780. See ante, vol. i., p. 58, et seq.

[1 ]As the depreciation of our money has been ascribed to a wrong cause, so, it may be remarked, have effects been ascribed to the depreciation, which result from other causes. Money is the instrument by which men’s wants are supplied, and many who possess it will part with it for that purpose, who would not gratify themselves at the expence of their visible property. Many also may acquire it, who have no visible property. By increasing the quantity of money therefore, you both increase the means of spending, and stimulate the desire to spend; and if the objects desired do not increase in proportion, their price must rise from the influence of the greater demand for them. Should the objects in demand happen, at the same juncture, as in the United States, to become scarcer, their price must rise in a double proportion.

It is by this influence of an augmentation of money on demand, that we ought to account for the proportional level of money in all countries, which Mr. Hume attributes to its direct influence on prices. When an augmentation of national coin takes place, it may be supposed either, 1. not to augment demand at all; or, 2. to augment it so gradually that a proportional increase of industry will supply the objects of it; or, 3. to augment it so rapidly that the domestic market may prove inadequate, whilst the taste for distinction natural to wealth, inspires, at the same time, a preference for foreign luxuries. The first case can seldom happen. Were it to happen, no change in prices, nor any efflux of money, would ensue; unless indeed, it should be employed, or loaned abroad. The superfluous portion would be either hoarded or turned into plate. The second case occurs only where the augmentation of money advances with a very slow and equable pace; and would be attended neither with a rise of prices, nor with a superfluity of money. The third is the only case, in which the plenty of money would occasion it to overflow into other countries. The insufficiency of the home market to satisfy the demand would be supplied from such countries as might afford the articles in demand; and the money would thus be drained off, till that and the demand excited by it, should fall to a proper level, and a balance be thereby restored between exports and imports.

The principle on which Mr. Hume’s theory, and that of Montesquieu’s before him, is founded, is materially erroneous. He considers the money in every country as the representative of the whole circulating property and industry in the country; and thence concludes that every variation in its quantity must increase or lessen the portion which represents the same portion of property or labor. The error lies in supposing, that because money serves to measure the value of all things, it represents and is equal in value to all things. The circulating property in every country, according to its market rate, far exceeds the amount of its money. At Athens oxen, at Rome sheep, were once used as a measure of the value of all things. It will hardly be supposed, they were therefore equal in value to all other things.

[1]It was decided against him by a vote of 39 to 20.

TO EDMUND PENDLETON.

Philada, Feby 13, 1791.

Dear Sir

With the sincerest affection I am Dear Sir, mo: respectfully yours.

TO AMBROSE MADISON.1

Philada March 2d, 1791.

Dear brother

I have recd yours of the 20th Feby from Falmouth. The young lady you mention has I find connections of the best sort in this place.

TO AMBROSE MADISON.1

Philada April 11, 1791.

Dear brother

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

N. York May 1, 1791.

Dear Sir

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

N. York May 12, 1791.

Dear Sir

Yrs affectly.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

New York June 23d 1791.

Dear Sir

Yrs mo: affecly.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

New York June 27, 1791.

Dear Sir

Yrs

TO JAMES MADISON.

N. York July 2d. 1791.

Hond. Sir

The Crops in general thro’ the Country I have passed & heard from are promising. Wheat is selling at Phila. at abt. a dollar a bushel & here in the usual proportion.

Remember me affectly to all, & accept the dutiful respects of your son.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

N. York July 10, 1791.

Dear Sir,

The pamphlet on Weights &c, was put into my hands by Docr Kemp with a view to be forwarded after perusal to you. As I understand it is a duplicate and to be kept by you. Always & mo: affecly.

—Mad. MSS.

Yrs

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

N. York July 13, 1791.

Dear Sir

Always & truly yours.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

N. York Aug 4, 1791.

My Dear Sir

Adieu Yrs. mo: affecly.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

N. York Aug: 8 1791.

My dear Sir

Adieu. Yrs Mo: affy.—Mad. MSS.

TO JAMES MADISON.

Philada Ocr. 30, 1791.1

Hond Sir

TO ROBERT PLEASANTS.

Philada. Ocr 30, 1791.

Sir

I thank you Sir for the friendly sentiments you have expressed towards me; and am with respect and esteem.

Your Obedt. hble Servt.—Mad. MSS.

TO JAMES MADISON.

Philada. Novr. 13, 1791.

Hond. Sir

Yr affectn Son—Mad. MSS.

[1 ]

TO HENRY LEE.

Philada. Decr 18th 1791.

My Dear Sir

—Mad. MSS.

[1 ]Washington debated seriously whether to sign or veto the bill, and at his request Madison prepared the following veto message for him:Feby 21. 1791. Copy of a paper made out & sent to the President at his request to be ready in case his judgment should finally decide agst the Bill for incorporating a National Bank, the bill being then before him.Gentlemen of the SenateHaving carefully examined and maturely considered the Bill entitled “An ActI am compelled by the conviction of my judgment and the duty of my Station to return the Bill to the House in which it originated with the following objections:(if to the Constitutionality)I object to the Bill because it is an essential principle of the Government that powers not delegated by the Constitution cannot be rightfully exercised; because the power proposed by the Bill to be exercised is not expressly delegated; and because I cannot satisfy myself that it results from any express power by fair and safe rules of implication.(if to the merits alone or in addition)I object to the Bill because it appears to be unequal between the public and the Institution in favor of the institution; imposing no conditions on the latter equivalent to the stipulations assumed by the former. [quer. if this lie within the intimation of the President]I object to the Bill because it is in all cases the duty of the Government to dispense its benefits to individuals with as impartial a hand as the public interest will permit; and the Bill is in this respect unequal to individuals holding different denominations of public Stock and willing to become subscribers. This objection lies with particular force against the early day appointed for opening subscriptions, which if these should be filled as quickly as may happen, amounts to an exclusion of those remote from the Government, in favor of those near enough to take advantage of the opportunity.—From the Chamberlain MSS. in the Boston Public Library.Jefferson and Edmund Randolph in the cabinet advised the vetoing of the bill, but Hamilton’s advice prevailed and Washington signed it February 25, 1791.

[1 ]Copy kindly contributed by W. W. Scott, Esquire, of Orange Co., lately State Librarian of Virginia.

[1 ]In the summer of 1791 Freneau announced his purpose of starting a paper in New Jersey, and Madison and Henry Lee induced him to come to Philadelphia instead. Jefferson appointed him a translator of French in the State Department at a salary of $250 a year, and October 31, 1791, The National Gazette appeared. See Life of Madison (Hunt), 235, et seq.

[1 ]The Daily Advertiser. See Madison’s next letter to Jefferson.

[1 ]Jefferson actually used a dining table made on this principle.

[2 ]The Rights of Man was reprinted by Samuel Harrison Smith (who afterwards founded The National Intelligencer) with a preface containing a commendation of the work from Jefferson. See for a full treatment of the subject Conway’s Thomas Paine, ii., 291, et seq.

[1 ]British Minister.

[2 ]British Consul General.

[3 ]They set out May 20 and were gone till June 16.

[4 ]Dorothy Ellsworth, wife of Verdine Ellsworth. She kept a boarding house on Maiden Lane where Madison lived.

[1 ]The papers were really by John Quincy Adams. See post, Madison’s letter of July 13 to Jefferson.

[1 ]Mr. Conway says Jefferson and Randolph endeavored to secure a place in the cabinet for Paine.—Conway’s Thomas Paine, i., 299.

[1 ]The blanks are so in the original. Perhaps he referred to Hamilton.

[1 ]Congress met October 24.

[1 ]Pleasants was a Quaker and wrote in behalf of “The Humane or Abolition Society” of Virginia, saying in his letter of June 6,—“believing thou [Madison] art a friend to general liberty,”—he had a strong desire to have a scheme of general emancipation in the state. “Knowing the sentiments of divers slave-holders, who are favorable to the design, I wish to have thy judgment on the propriety of a Petition to our assembly for a law declaring the children of slaves to be born after the passing such act, to be free at the usual ages of eighteen and twenty-one years; and to enjoy such privileges as may be consistent with justice and sound policy.”—Mad. MSS. The leading minds of Virginia were in favor of emancipation. See Randall’s Jefferson, i., 227.The memorial against the militia bill was presented November 23.

[2 ]It so happened.—Note in Madison’s handwriting.

[2 ]St. Clair’s defeat, November 4, 1791.

Home

The Forum

Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

The Library

Return to Title Page for The Writings, vol. 6 (1790-1802)

The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

SPEECHES IN THE FIRST CONGRESS—THIRD SESSION, 1791. - James Madison, The Writings, vol. 6 (1790-1802) [1906]

Edition used:

Part of: The Writings of James Madison, 9 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Copyright information:

Fair use statement:

SPEECHES IN THE FIRST CONGRESS—THIRD SESSION, 1791.

FEBRUARY 2.—BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

FEBRUARY 8.—BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

POPULATION AND EMIGRATION.1

CONSOLIDATION.1

PUBLIC OPINION.1

MONEY.1

TO EDMUND PENDLETON.

Dear Sir

TO AMBROSE MADISON.1

Dear brother

TO AMBROSE MADISON.1

Dear brother

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir

Yrs affectly.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir

Yrs mo: affecly.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir

Yrs

TO JAMES MADISON.

Hond. Sir

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,

Yrs

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir

Always & truly yours.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

My Dear Sir

Adieu Yrs. mo: affecly.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

My dear Sir

Adieu. Yrs Mo: affy.—Mad. MSS.

TO JAMES MADISON.

Hond Sir

TO ROBERT PLEASANTS.

Sir

Your Obedt. hble Servt.—Mad. MSS.

TO JAMES MADISON.

Hond. Sir

Yr affectn Son—Mad. MSS.

TO HENRY LEE.

My Dear Sir

TO EDMUND PENDLETON.

Dear Sir

TO AMBROSE MADISON.1

Dear brother

TO AMBROSE MADISON.1

Dear brother

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir

Yrs affectly.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir

Yrs mo: affecly.—Mad. MSS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.