JANUARY, 1800. Reduction of the Army. H. OF R. that sum the expenses of collection, which, being 5 per cent., would amount to $115,000. He had stated, what was true, that the whole of the nett proceeds of that tax could not be received in the Treasury during the present year. Yet he insisted that the whole amount should be considered as part of those receipts. because an anticipation for the deficiency might be obtained by way of loan, from the Bank. That anticipation certainly could not be considered as part of the receipts arising from revenue. Instead of being credited to the account of revenue, it ought to be charged as part of the debt that would be contracted during the present year. An anticipation was as much a debt as any other loan. The amount of that anticipation would fill a part of the deficiency and should be added to the amount of five millions, stated as deficiencies by the gentleman. He had also neglected to insert several items in his estimate of expenditures; the most important omission was the necessary disbursements for the building of the seventy-fours, which, by the Secretary of the Treasury, dulged himself in a number of observations on a of dollars. But he had forgotten to deduct from supposed party, whose views he had represented at one time to be to carry elections by means of insurrections, at another to estrange the people from their Government. He seemed indeed to have altogether confounded evidences of dissatisfaction at certain measures of Administration with a decided hatred against a Government of their own choice. But he had concluded his observation by an unexpected conclusion. For, after having stated the strength of that party as extremely formidable-since he had drawn proof of its existence from the legislative proceedings of some large and respectable State, from the declarations of the Governor of another powerful State, and even from the supposed opinions of the second official character of the Union-after having represented their views as extremely dangerous, not less indeed than to persuade the militia, the people of this country, that they should consider French invaders as their deliverers-he told us that they were too weak in numbers, and too contemptible to be considered as in any degree dangerous. Did I believe the reality of all the positions of that gen-were estimated at $1,300,000. tleman, relative to party, I must confess that I The deficiency is, however, acknowledged to be would not consider that party as too contemptible at least four millions; making only these few corto create any danger. And if he did believe they rections to the statement of the gentleman from were so harmless, to what purpose did he expa- South Carolina, it appears to be five millions. tiate so much at large on their existence and de- Our revenue is stated by all of us to be only nine milsigns? But the gentleman from Delaware views lions; and under those circumstances, Mr. G. said, this subject in a different light. His conclusion he would ask, whether a saving of two millions was, that, knowing the existence of such a party, it and a half, which would result from the adoption was necessary to have an army, in order to defend of the motion, would be called contemptible? But this country against an invasion, inasmuch as a we are flattered by expectations of an increasing considerable part of the militia could not be trust-revenue, even without additional taxes. The very ed with its defence. suppress party. reverse, a diminution, instead of an increase, apIf a party does exist so inimical to our Govern- pears probable. The gentleman from South Carment as to join an invading enemy, in order toolina has compared the proceeds of the impost of subvert it, they must be supposed to subvert it 1795 with those of 1799, in order to prove an inwithout an invasion. It is impossible to mistake crease. But he forgot to state how much was due the meaning of the gentlemen. When they ground to a real increase of importation, and how much the necessity of an army on the supposed exist- to an increase of taxation. The fact was, that ence of a party, let them express themselves as they the rate of duty on many articles had been conplease, either they mean nothing, or they mean siderably increased in 1796 and 1797, and that an that an army is necessary not only against an en- additional duty on salt had been laid in 1798, all emy, but against a party of the people. Let the of which were blended together in his statements. gentlemen be silent about party, or let them can- But the right way of computation would have didly acknowledge that this army is intended to been to compare the proceeds of the impost for 1799 with those of 1798 and 1797; and that comMr. G. then proceeded to make some observa-parison would show a defalcation in 1799 of near tions on the financial statements of the gentleman from South Carolina. He said he had avoided making any detailed statement of that kind, because he knew that the official documents, necessary to form a correct estimate, were not yet before the House. And he had stated. in the gross, that our revenue was about nine millions, our expenditure about fourteen, and the deficiency therefore about five. The result of the gentleman from South Carolina was to show a deficiency of only four millions. It was immaterial to the present question whether that deficiency was four or five millions. But the details on which the gentleman from South Carolina had grounded his result were in some degree incorrect. He had estimated the nett proceeds of the land tax at two millions eight hundred thousand dollars from the average proceeds of 1797 and 1798; for those two years had given $14,400,000 for the impost and tonnage, equal to an average of $7,200,000, and the year 1799 had given less than $6,500,000. Was there any probability, from the importations of last Fall as compared with those of the preceding years, that the amount of impost for 1800 would exceed the amount of 1799? We import in proportion to our consumption, which must be limited by our means of payment. Those means of payment are always in proportion to our exports, and an examination of these will show that the quantities of articles of our own produce have not increased, but, on the whole, have rather suffered a decrease within these past few years. It is solely to the increase of the price in most of the articles, that we are indebted for any increase in the value of that of our exports, which consist of articles of our own produce. The prodigious fall of seven dollars at least per hundred, in the price of tobacco, will make a difference of several millions of dollars in the value of our exports, will so far diminish our means of payment for articles imported, and will so far tend to diminish our importations and affect our revenue. We are, however, told that any increase of debt that may be created in consequence of our present situation is trifling in itself, and holds no proportion to the supposed increase of resources resulting from our growing population. But the gentlemen from Massachusetts (Mr. OTIs) and from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER) estimate that possible increase at something more than twenty millions of dollars, which would require, according to the calculation of one of those gentlemen, additional taxes to the amount of two millions, in order to pay the interest on and redeem the principal itself in twenty years. Whether to add twenty five per cent. to our debt and taxes can be considered as trifling, Mr. G. said, he would leave the Committee to judge? But was it not a most extraordinary and novel mode of calculating, not on the present resources of the country, but on those which posterity might have? Are we then so sure that our posterity will have no dangers of their own to encounter, and no additional expenditures which will require every additional resource they may possess? Let us provide, out of our own resources, for our own wants, instead of mortgaging not only our actual revenue, but even that which may hereafter be raised by posterity. Much has been said by the gentleman from South Carolina of certain new financial discoveries, relative to the application of a sinking fund, which had they been known to British Ministers fifty or one hundred years ago, as well as they were to the present Administration of that country, would have discharged, by this time, the whole debt of Great Britain. Were we to judge of the merit of that pretended new application of a sinking fund by its effects, we would not be disposed to admire it as much as the gentleman. Seventeen years ago, the debt of Great Britain did not exceed two hundred and forty millions sterling. During that period, that country had enjoyed ten years of peace, and had seven years of war; during that period, the years of war did not exceed the average proportion of time for which England had been involved in war for the last fifty years. At present her debt was almost five hundred millions sterling. The present Administration of Great Britain, notwithstanding all the boasted merit of certain modifications of the sinking fund, had more than doubled the public debt during that period. I know, said Mr. G., but one way that a nation has of paying her debts; and that is precisely the same which individuals practise. Spend less than you receive;" and you may then apply the surplus of your receipts to the discharge of your debts. But if you spend more than you receive, you may have recourse to sinking funds, you may JANUARY, 1800. modify them as you please, you may render your accounts extremely complex, you may give a scientific appearance to additions and subtractions; you must still necessarily increase your debt. If you spend more than you receive, the difference must be supplied by loans; and if out of these receipts you have set a sum apart to pay your debts-if you have so mortgaged or disposed of that sum that you cannot apply it to your useful expenditure, you must borrow so much more in order to meet your expenditure. If your revenue is nine millions of dollars, and your expenditure fourteen, you must borrow, you must create a new debt of five millions. But if two millions of that revenue are, under the name of sinking fund, applicable to the payment of the principal of an old debt, and pledged for it, then the portion of your revenue applicable to discharging your current expenditures of fourteen millions is reduced to seven millions; and instead of borrowing five millions, you must borrow seven: you create a new debt of seven millions, and you pay an old one of two. It is still the same increase of five millions of debt. The only difference that is produced arises from the relative price you give for the old debt and rate of interest you pay for the new. At present we pay yearly, a part of a domestic debt, bearing six per cent. interest, and of a foreign debt bearing four or five per cent. interest; and we may pay both of them at par. At the same time we are obliged to borrow at the rate of eight per cent. At present, therefore, that nominal sinking fund increases our debt, or at least the annual interest payable on our debt. Mr. G. said, he would now conclude the desultory observations into which he had been drawn, from a wish to reply to some parts of the speech of the gentleman from South Carolina. It was true, indeed, those observations could have no weight with gentlemen who supposed the liberty and independence of the country concerned in the reduction of the Military Establishment. To him it was only a question of economy, which could have no possible effect on the external relations of America, which had no importance except as a question of economy. But, as such, he considered it as highly important, and hoped it might be viewed in the same light by the Committee. Mr. H. LEE.-If, Mr. Speaker, search after truth was sincerely pursued in debate, we should be relieved from much useless discussion, much unnecessary consumption of our time, and the common good would be more thoroughly promoted. But it seems as if long habit in public speaking produced a desire rather to give some colorable pretexts for favorite opinions, however erroneous, than by open and manly arguments to enlighten and convince. Much as we have cause to lament the prevalence of this habit, it must be endured, and can be corrected only by sound decisions in those whose province it is to decide. The gentleman last up (Mr. GALLATIN) has started with a fundamental error, which has diffused its influence through his whole argument. To have regarded the turn of his discourse you would suppose that the question before us was the creation of a permanent military force, when in truth it is whether we shall disband a part of a force already created, or, in other words, whether we shall disband a considerable portion of the army raised for the express purpose of defending the United States from an unprovoked existing war waged against us by France, before we know what may be the termination of our third attempt to secure to us a solid peace. We contend that prudence, dignity, and economy, alike command us to make no diminution in our actual force, till the result of the existing negotiation is ascertained. I put it to the candor of the honorable gentleman last up, whether this is not the real question. But the course of debate has obscured if not changed the point in dispute, and the attention of the Committee has been drawn to objects opposite or irrelevant. If the real question be that now stated, I ask on what ground can gentlemen hesitate in their decision? In three months we shall know whether the enemy conclude a peace, or continue war. In the first event the army falls of course, in the last event their services may be wanting. The intermediate expense will not be more than $130,000, and shall we, to avoid this small expense, properly styled "contemptible" by the gentleman himself, deprive our country of the means of selfdefence acquired by a large expenditure of our money? On the score of economy only, I repeat my assertion, the measure ought to be rejected. But says the honorable gentleman, we believe the negotiation for peace will fail and then we have no doubt the army will be held in service, and a useless expense of two millions and a half of dollars thus incurred. To prevent this, we now urge its reduction. H. OF R. on the part of the United States, in consequence of French aggression, and indeed that this fact was established from evidence exhibited by the gentleman last up. To make any change in that system at this time I persist in believing not only unwarranted by sound policy, but as begetting impressions unfavorable to our national character, and tending to disappoint our hopes of peace. The gentleman thought it extremely improper in our deliberations to respect at all the influence which our conduct might have on the councils and conduct of any other nation, but contended that every measure ought to be tried by its own intrinsic merit. I differ entirely in opinion from the honorable member. In my judgment, no consideration is more proper than the effect of our measures on the conduct of the nation to whom such measures apply. I know no other test by which the merit or demerit of our deliberations can be so fairly ascertained; thus we act in private life, and thus do and must all nations act. By what other light ought we, or can we direct our steps? But it seems, we not only ought to disre gard the influence of our measures on our present foe, but must shut out, too, from our deliberations, all the instruction which history affords. The learned and relevant researches which the honorable member from South Carolina edified us with, have drawn upon him, from the gentleman last up, unmerited asperity. Very differently indeed, sír, did my mind feel under the instructive illustration. I feel the propriety of holding up to the view of America, the fall of Venice, of Holland, of humble, but once happy Switzerland. The example of other nations ought, and I hope will teach us to avoid similar destruction, by adopting in time different conduct. In what manner can you so strongly appeal to the good sense of your own countrymen, as by showing to them from the faithful page of history how to avoid national disasters? It is not possible to declare the situation of things should the negotiation fail-therefore it is not possible to say now what it may be proper to do in case of such failure-the conduct to be observed must be decided by the existing circum- If, Mr. Chairman, we are neither to regard the stances of the period. But I hesitate not in pro- effect of our measures on those on whom they are nouncing it as my opinion, that if the public intended to operate, nor to look into history for interest shall require a reduction, or even a dis-light to guide our deliberations, we act the part of bandment of the army, negotiation failing, such reduction or disbandment will be made; the happiness of the people would command the measure, and their happiness is the sole object of the exertions of those gentlemen with whom he had the pleasure of acting on this floor, as well as of every other department of Government, so far as it was in his power to distinguish their views. Was it reduced to a certainty that the pending negotiation would terminate in a solid peace, I should with alacrity support the motion on the table, for upon all occasions it is our duty to save the public money, unless by such saving we sacrifice more important interests. But the event of the negotiation is unknown; I must, therefore, continue to resist every measure which in this state of incertitude tends to decrease our actual force, or to brand with the stamp of caprice our public councils. I persuade myself, that some days ago, it was clearly shown that the army to which the motion applies was part of the general system of defence adopted mere puppets, spending to no possible good purpose the people's money, and exhibiting to the world a splendid instance of human insignificance. Fortunately for the American nation and for the human race, such barbarous doctrines cannot be admitted. History will be referred to by those who direct public councils, and time, in its guidance, will uphold human happiness, by enlightening human councils. I thank the member from South Carolina, for his applicable and illustrating information, confirmed not only in the instance he has quoted, but by all ancient history, and especially in the conquest of Greece, by Philip of Macedon. How then results this historical inquiry? Certainly, that the United States, warned by the fall of other nations, ought to hold fast all her acquired means of defence, till the establishment of a solid peace shall authorize her with safety to save her money by reducing her expenses. But the same member has been pleased to ac knowledge that the system of defence had produced a change of conduct on the part of France, but attributes this change to our diplomatic efforts and naval exertions. I agree with him in part; the ability displayed by our late Envoys, and the vigilance of our infant navy, no doubt contributed to produce the change alluded to, so did also the raising of an additional military force, and the other defensive measures adopted by Congress. It has again and again been represented that we place our whole confidence for the defence of our country, in case of invasion, in these ten or twelve thousand men, although we have often denied it. We have again and again declared that we consider a well disciplined militia to be the chief bulwark of our nation, but have insisted on the impropriety of trusting to militia only in actual war. A regular army, adequate to the object of co-operating with the militia, we prefer as the safest and cheapest defence. Let us then be quoted fairly, let the truth only be disseminated, and I cheerfully will meet all the consequences of the opinion given. JANUARY, 1800. When that great and good man whose picture hangs before us, conducted the Government, what was the trial to which he was subjected with a foreign agent! How difficult did he find it, with all the greatness of his character, to repress the intrigues of that foreign agent! Did not a difference of opinion, ranged in conformity with existing differences of opinion, pervade the continent? Were there not found many citizens who openly maintained the proceedings of the foreign Minister in opposition to their own Chief Magistrate? How then can gentlemen affect to disbelieve that the people of America are liable, like other nations, to all the disasters which spring from factions and factious men? The gentleman is certainly correct when he says that powerful nations consult too often their own will and not the rules of right, nor can the truth of the position be more precisely maintained than by the example of that very nation now at war with us. Austria and Great Britain, powerful nations, I dare say have also often proved the correctness of the gentleman's opinion; but it does not The honorable gentleman has attempted to do follow that because these two nations do wrong, away all the operation of the illustration which that therefore we ought to submit to injuries refell from the gentleman from South Carolina, so ceived from France. My own opinion is that far as it grew out of difference of opinion existing America onght to guard herself against injury in this country, by asserting that although the from all nations, disregarding their name or situaHollanders did experience much evil from their tion. I wish, said Mr. L., we could conduct our internal discord, yet the same evils were not to be affairs without having anything to do with the apprehended from our differences of opinion. We Ministers of foreign nations, we should then be exhad no Stadtholder, nor did we assimilate in any empt from the influence of their intrigues; but respect the condition of the people of Holland. It this is impossible, and of course, the only course to is true we have no Stadtholder, nor is our situa-be pursued is to counteract their operation as much tion as a people much like that of Holland, but we are men, we are governed by the appetites and passions common to men, and we must expect the same effect from the same causes; unless, as was correctly expressed by an ingenious young member the other day, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) the operation of physical and moral causes and effects was suspended in America. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, and I acknowledge it with much pain, that our differences in America are the same as to principle and operation as are the differences referred to, and the extent of the effect will depend on the good sense of the people. For my own part I sincerely wish they would rid the public councils of all factious men. Thus and thus only can the evil be arrested. as possible, by guarding against the effect. But it is not the way to guard ourselves by declaring, with the same gentleman, that they can do us no injury. I lament very much that the debate has taken this turn, but it was not possible to avoid it, without shrinking from that full inquiry demanded by the occasion. It has been more than once insinuated that the army is preserved with a view to turn their arms on a part of the people who differ in sentiment from Administration. Is it possible that such an opinion can be entertained? What evidence can be resorted to in justification of such a sentiment? Ought it to have been ventured without full proof to support it? Can any insinuation be more cruel or absurd? An Administration uniformly distinguished by love of country, by zeal for the common happiness, by vigilance and wisdom in the execution of its duty, and by an enlarged and correct arrangement of all the affairs of the nation, surely deserves very different treatment. I must therefore say, what I utter with reluctance, that these derogating suspicions must have been experienced in the breast of the member who announced them. Difference of opinion, sir, backed by possession of power, no matter how named or how dressed, will lead always to disastrous consequences, if successfully fostered by an erring people or by the intrigues of a foreign nation. This truth the honorable member would find fully exhibited in that invaluable book written by the illustrious personage at the head of our Government, and which work in my humble opinion stands first in all the efforts Much has been said on the subject of money and of science to secure and perpetuate the blessings the saving of money. But it has not been proved of liberty to man, notwithstanding the miscon- on the present occasion that the small retrenchceived and unmerited censure which now sur-ment contended for would ultimately turn out a rounds it. It is in vain for gentlemen to treat so indifferently the existing difference of opinion among us, their own experience meets them full in the face. saving of money-the reverse was most probable. It was the duty of every man in that House to be careful of the public money, and, as far as his small experience justified any opinion, no Legislature could be more attentive to this subject than the House of Representatives. Let us proceed in the same praiseworthy manner, but let us not prefer saving the people's money to securing their liberty and their lives. For my own part, I never considered the present subject as involving much pecuniary consequence, and therefore have been surprised to find gentlemen in opposition always recuring to this ground. Another topic sensible in its effect on the eloquence of the friends to the motion, and a never failing topic, is the militia; and, to show their entire capacity to defend the country, various instances have been cited of their valor in the American revolutionary war. It is certainly grateful to the American ear to hear eulogiums pronounced on our countrymen, and no heart rejoices more than does mine in recollecting the gallantry of our militia The two examples quoted, Bunker's Hill and King's Mountain, are illustrious proofs of American valor, and grateful America has always manifested her deep regard of those highly honored defenders of their country. Was it necessary, we could add many other memorable testimonies of the occasional and gallant services of our militia during the late war, but it is unnecessary and will be avoided. For, although true, it does not change the position we contend for. The mere act of fighting is not the whole of soldiership. The militia equal any troops in personal courage and exceed all in fidelity. They want method, patience, obedience, and combination, without all which attributes, no man can be a good soldier. Sir, without these qualifications, essential to war, never expect a long course of success. The trained man does possess them, and therefore will forever be superior to the untrained man. You must, therefore, when you prepare for war, create a trained army. We want no mercenary nor foreign army-we want our own brothers, our own sons, taught to be patient, to obey, to retreat, to act in concert, and thus in the hour of battle to be equal to their enemy, however skilful. Show me, in any country, where militia have so done, until beaten into it by long and constant course of service. It cannot be done. He was sorry his honorable colleague had used the word mercenary; it certainly was not justly applied to our army-an army of foreigners fighting for her only was so designated with propriety. But really he could never admit the justice of the appellation when applied to an army of natives, interested in common with us all as to country and objects, and distinguished from us only by the receipt of pay. If this last distinction authorized the expression, it might be applied to our militia; they receive pay when in service. The King's Mountain action is no proof of the counter opinion. An imprudent though gallant officer had placed himself far from all possible support and in the neighborhood of a country entirely inimical. He was caught on the top of a mountain, hid as it were like a squirrel. Surrounded by brave militia, expert in the use of rifles, his fate was inevitable. But suppose he could have entrenched himself and had been in possession of a fortnight's H. OF R. supply of provisions; do you believe he would have been taken? No, the event would not have happened; brave as were the assailants they were militia, they would have been found destitute of patience, and thus the enemy would have escaped. I say not this to subtract from the credit due to these gallant and patriotic citizens. No man more reveres their heroism, but I make the explanation that my country, knowing the truth, may repel the introduction of error. But it seems we are to have militia like the conscripts of France. If you effect this, your militia will be regulars-for the name conscript and the name regular means one and the same thing. The mildness of our Government forbids the possibility of such a change. It can never be effected but under the misrule of despotism, and God forbid we should ever imitate France, either in Government or in the management of our citizens! In every view then, Mr. Chairman, of the subject before us, pressed as has been the motion by its friends, I must give it my decided negative, convinced that in so doing I truly promote the public good. Mr. HUGER said he rose to expres his desire, that the Committee would take the question. He confessed he had made up his mind; indeed, after the talents and abilities displayed on the present question, he should suppose every member had received all the information possible on the subject, and he could not be wrong in thinking every gentleman had formed his opinion. Having been detained from the city much longer than he wished, he had voted, on a former occasion, that the subject should undergo such a discussion as to enable him to give a vote on the question; that had been allowed, and a mature discussion taken place. In his opinion, Mr. H. said, the motion was at least premature-this was his opinion at first, but he wished to hear reasons against it, if any could be adduced. Supposing no new impressions could be made, why should the debate be prolonged? Some gentlemen might perhaps wish to give a reason for their vote; he wished such might be patiently heard. If gentlemen wish to go farther, and extend their observations in the way the subject had been treated, they ought to publish in the newspapers what would have been their speeches on this occasion. This was not unfrequently done, and would much save the time of the House. Much had been said about our finances. Mr. H. conceived a trifling expense, such as this had been represented, was not worthy notice, especially as considerable advantages might be derived. When an expense was superfluous, it ought to be prevented; then it might be necessary to mention the financial state of the nation; but no such thing was now pretended. On the whole, he considered the present state of things called upon him to vote in the negative. The question was called for, from different parts of the House, when Mr. RANDOLPH rose, and begged the attention of the Committee to a few observations, which if not granted as indulgence he should be obliged to |