mittee might be appointed for that purpose. After some objections by Mr. MADISON, against the impropriety of holding a communication with Pennsylvania through committees, when the purpose might be as well answered by a memorial, or an instruction to its Delegates, a committee was appointed, consisting of Mr. RUTLEDGE, Mr. MADISON, and Mr. Wilson.

The Report proposing a commutation for the halfpay due to the army was taken up. On a motion to allow five and a half years' whole pay in gross to be funded and bear interest, — this being the rate taken from Dr. Price's calculation of annuities, - New Hampshire was, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, no; Virginia, aye (Mr. LEE, no;) other States, aye; so the question was lost. Five years was then proposed, on which New Hampshire was, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, no; so there was but six ayes, and the proposition was lost. Mr. WILLIAMSON proposed five and a quarter, and called for the yeas and nays. Messrs. WOLCOTT and DYER observed, that they were bound by instructions on this subject. Mr. ARNOLD said the case was the same with him. They all queried the validity of the act of Congress which had stipulated half-pay to the army, as it had passed before the Confederation, and by a vote of less than seven States.

Mr. MADISON said that he wished, if the yeas and nays were called, it might be on the true calculation, and not on an arbitrary principle of compromise; as the latter, standing singly on the Journal, would not express the true ideas of the yeas, and might even subject them to contrary interpretations. He said that the act was valid, because it was de

cided according to the rule then in force; and that, as the officers had served under the faith of it, justice fully corroborated it, and that he was astonished to hear these principles controverted. He was also astonished to hear objections against a commutation come from States in compliance with whose objections against the half-pay itself this expedient had been substituted. Mr. WILSON expressed his surprise, also, that instructions should be given which militated against the most peremptory and lawful engagements of Congress, and said that if such a doctrine prevailed the authority of the Confederacy was at an end. Mr. ARNOLD said that he wished the report might not be decided on at this time; that the Assembly of Rhode Island was in session, and he hoped to receive their further advice. Mr. BLAND enforced the ideas of Mr. MADISON and Mr. WILSON. Mr. GILMAN thought it would be best to refer the subject of half-pay to the several States, to be settled between them and their respective lines. By general consent the Report lay over.

Mr. LEE communicated to Congress a letter he had received from Mr. Samuel Adams, dated Boston, December the twenty-second, 1782, introducing Mr. from Canada, as a person capable of giving intelligence relative to affairs in Canada, and the practicability of uniting that province with the confederated States. The letter was committed.

In Committee of the Whole on the Report concerning a valuation of the lands of the United States,

A motion was made by Mr. RUTLEDGE, which took the sense of Congress on this question, whether the rule of apportionment, to be grounded on the

proposed valuation, should continue in force until revoked by Congress, or a period be now fixed, beyond which it should not continue in force. The importance of the distinction lay in the necessity of having seven votes on every act of Congress. The Eastern States were, generally, for the latter; supposing that the Southern States, being impoverished by the recent havoc of the enemy, would be underrated in the first valuation. The Southern States were, for the same reason, interested in favor of the former. the question there were six ayes only, which produced dispute whether, in a Committee of the Whole, a majority would decide, or whether seven votes were

necessary.

On

In favor of the first rule it was contended by Mr. GORHAM, and others, that in committees of Congress. the rule always is that a majority decides.

In favor of the latter it was contended, that if the rule of other committees applies to a Committee of the Whole, the vote should be individual per capita, as well as by a majority; that in other deliberative assemblies the rules of voting were not varied in Committees of the Whole, and that it would be inconvenient in practice to report to Congress, as the sense of the body, a measure approved by four or five States, since there could be no reason to hope that, in the same body, in a different form, seven States would approve it; and, consequently, a waste of time would be the result.

The Committee rose, and Congress adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5TH, and THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6TH.

In order to decide the rule of voting in a Committee of the Whole, before Congress should go into the said Committee, Mr. BLAND moved that the rule should be to vote by States, and the majority of States in committee to decide. Mr. WILSON moved to postpone Mr. BLAND's motion, in order to resolve that the rule be to vote by States, and according to the same rules which govern Congress; as this general question was connected, in the minds of members, with the particular question to which it was to be immediately applied, the motion for postponing was negatived, chiefly by the Eastern States. A division of the question on Mr. BLAND's motion was then called for, and the first part was agreed to, as on the Journal. The latter clause, to wit, a majority to decide, was negatived; so nothing as to the main point was determined. In this uncertainty, Mr. OSGOOD proposed, that Congress should resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole. Mr. CARROLL, as Chairman, observed, that as the same difficulty would occur, he wished Congress would, previously, direct him how to proceed. Mr. HAMILTON proposed that the latter clause of Mr. BLAND'S motion should be reconsidered, and agreed to, wrong as it was, rather than have no rule at all. In opposition to which it was said, that there was no more reason why one, and that not the minor side, should wholly yield to the inflexibility of the other, than vice versa; and that if they should be willing to yield, on the present occasion, it would be

better to do it tacitly than to saddle themselves with an express and perpetual rule, which they judged improper. This expedient was assented to, and Congress accordingly went into a Committee of the Whole.

The points arising on the several amendments proposed were, first, the period beyond which the rule of the first valuation should not be in force. On this point, Mr. COLLINS proposed five years, Mr. BLAND ten years, Mr. BOUDINOT seven years; New Jersey having instructed her delegates thereon. The Connecticut Delegates proposed three years. On the question for three years, New Hampshire, no; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, aye; Connecticut, aye; all the other States, no. On the question for five years, all the States aye, except Connecticut.

The second point was whether, and how far, the rule should be retrospective. On this point the same views operated as on the preceding. Some were against any retrospection; others for extending it to the whole debt, and others for extending it so far as was necessary for liquidating and closing the accounts between the United States and each individual State.

The several motions expressive of these different ideas were at length withdrawn, with a view that the point might be better digested, and more accurately brought before Congress; so the Report was agreed to in the Committee, and made to Congress. When the question was about to be put, Mr. MADISON observed, that the Report lay in a great degree of confusion; that several points had been decided in a way too vague and indirect to ascertain the real