Manner of taking certain oaths.

H. OF R.]

Manner of taking certain oaths.

[MAY, 1789.

believe, sir, that the persons who are to take this taking the oath, is either lodged with the Conoath in conformity to the Constitution, will con-gress of the United States, or no where. But it ceive themselves, after having taken such oath, appears to me that the State Legislatures have a under an obligation to support the Constitution. concurrent power with Congress in this regulaIt has been said by one gentleman, that Congress tion, for the officers of the General Government have not the power to carry this regulation into and State Governments are called upon in the effect. Only a few words will be necessary to same manner. "The Senators and Representaconvince gentlemen that Congress have this tives before mentioned, and the members of the power. It is declared by the Constitution, that several State Legislatures, and all executive and its ordinances shall be the supreme law of the judicial officers, both of the United States and of land. If the Constitution is the supreme law of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirthe land, every part of it must partake of this mation, to support the Constitution." These ar supremacy; consequently, every general declara- the words of that instrument. The question tion it contains is the supreme law. But then then, is reduced to its expediency, whether it is these general declarations cannot be carried into good policy to exercise the power or not? I am effect without particular regulations adapted to afraid, Mr. Speaker, if we exercise this power, it the circumstances. These particular regulations may be considered an interference with the State are to be made by Congress, who, by the Consti- Governments. I would rather leave them to their tution, have power to make all laws necessary or discretion, trusting they would come forward and proper to carry the declarations of the Constitu- take the oath; it is unnecessary for us to intertion into effect. The Constitution likewise de- meddle, if they will conform to what is directed clares that the members of the State Legislatures, by the Constitution. It appears to me most and all officers, executive and judicial, shall take prudent that, till we see a disposition in the State an oath to support the Constitution. This decla- Governments to neglect this duty, we do not, by ration is general, and it lies with the supreme law, oblige them to perform it. I wish the GovLegislature to detail and regulate it. The law is ernment to go on gradually in administering the to supply the necessary means of executing the Constitution, and not give umbrage even to its principle laid down; for how can it be carried enemies, by a compulsory act, when there appears into effect in any other manner? This explana- no necessity for it. tion, I trust, convinces gentlemen that the power of enacting such a law exists in Congress. But whether it is good policy or not to do it, depends upon a variety of circumstances; for my own part, I think it prudent to make the necessary regulations for carrying into effect this part of the Constitution. I imagine some good effects were intended by the provision, nor can I think the feelings of the State officers will be injured by taking an oath to support the Government, when the people, in the language of the Constitution, have said they shall. Why should gentlemen suppose the members of the Legislature, or any public officer, have objections to take an oath, when the people have declared one shall be taken by them? I conceive there can be no rational objection on their part. I shall, therefore, be in favor of the amendment proposed by the Senate, trusting that good effects will arise from our making such a regulation.

Mr. SYLVESTER. I am an advocate for supporting the dignity of the House, and to me it appears somewhat inconsistent that we should change our sentiments, in order to conform to the amendment of the Senate, without knowing the reason upon which they have founded the proposed measure. No doubt, but sufficient reasons have occurred to them, but none have appeared to this House. If we are to follow the Senate in all the alterations they propose, without hearing reasons to induce a change, our time in deliberation is taken up unnecessarily. With respect to any member of this House who has not taken the oath, I concur that they are to pay obedience to what the authority of the Legislature may order on this head. Nay, I am equally clear that the power to regulate the members of the State Governments in

I could not concur in the amendment proposed by the Senate, even if I considered it not inconsistent in the House to adopt a measure they had previously rejected, unless some good reasons were offered to show its propriety; not but if I have been mistaken, I am always ready to retract my error, upon better information.

Mr. SHERMAN was not afraid of being charged with inconsistency. He had voted against a similar clause when the bill was before the House, but he was convinced now of its propriety; he thought it more eligible to have a general provision for taking the oath, than particular ones. It also appeared necessary to point out the oath itself, as well as the time and manner of taking it.

No other Legislature is competent to all these purposes; but, if they were, there is a propriety in the Supreme Legislature's doing it. At the same time, if the State Legislatures take it up, it cannot operate disagreeably upon them, to find all their neighboring States obliged to join them in supporting a measure they approve. What a State Legislature may do will be good as far as it goes; on the same principle, the Constitution will apply to each individual of the State officers-they may go, without the direction of the State Legislature, to a justice, and take the oath voluntarily. This, I suppose, would be binding upon them. But this is not satisfactory; the Government ought to know that the oath has been properly taken, and this can only be done by a general regulation. If it is in the discretion of the State Legislatures to make laws to carry the declaration of the Constitution into execution, they have the power of refusing, and may avoid the positive injunctions of the Constitution. As our power in this particular extends over the whole Union, it is most

As to the policy or expediency of the measure, he entertained not the least doubt respecting it. The Constitution said only that the officers of Government should be bound by oath, leaving to Congress to say what oath. In short, it was the duty of the House, as had been well said by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. LAWRENCE,) to detail the general principles laid down in the Constitution, and reduce them to practice.

He would enforce the expediency of the measure with one further remark. Several of the State Legislatures were sitting at this time, and had expressed a wish or expectation that such a regulation would be made by the General Government; if from principles of false policy the measure did not take place, the State Legislatures might neglect it also, and it was well known that their officers cannot act without it; hence the legality of their acts may be called in question, and give cause to a great deal of uneasiness and confusion.

[H. of R.

proper for us to take the subject up, and make the be more delicate in voting or using arguments proper provision for carrying it into execution, to oppose them. But I will, with the liberty of according to the intention of the Constitution. the House, proceed to prove, that this part of our Mr. BOUDINOT wished to remove the gentle-system does not bear so much harder upon one man's objections arising from inconsistency. The part than another, as gentlemen seem to think. clause that was rejected by the Committee of the In order to do this, I shall endeavor to examine Whole on this bill, contained a penalty for the the principles laid down by the honorable gentleneglect of taking the oath as prescribed; but the men who support the idea, that a tonnage duty amendment of the Senate was not objectionable will bear much heavier on the Southern States on that account, because it contained no such than on the Northern ones, previously making provision. some observations on what has been urged by the gentlemen from Georgia (Mr. JACKSON) and South Carolina, (Mr. SMITH,) concerning the poverty of those States. They, with great ingenuity, eloquence, and, I may add, candor, displayed the desperate situation of those States; but, can it be unknown to this honorable House, that other States are also very poor? There are, you know, Mr. Speaker, certain degrees of poverty. It may be difficult, without the proper documents, to ascertain the relative degree of poverty between one State and another. The two Southernmost States are said to be oppressed with an enormous public debt; so are all the other States. It is said, that they have great difficulty in getting their produce carried to market. It may be so, but does not the whole of the commodities of those States find their way to market? There are not only different degrees of poverty, but there are also two kinds of poverty, which I will just point out to the gentlemen. The one is the poverty of those States which have got valuable productions on hand that they cannot carry to market-the other is, the poverty of having nothing to carry there, or very little. I need not trouble myself with repeating which of these kinds is the best subject for taxation. However, as I do not conceive this present article was particularly intended to be a tax upon one part of the Union more than another, I shall not dwell longer upon this point, but proceed to observe, and endeavor to prove, that this is a tax upon foreigners only; a tax which foreigners are very able and willing to pay: that is, they will not forsake the trade on account of this tax being laid upon it. It has been observed by the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. SMITH,) that the reason why British shipping get so much more freight than the vessels of the United States is, because of the debt which the Southern States owe to the people of Great Britain, and that those people are ready to receive their debts in produce, as soon as it can be got ready for them. This is just and kind of the citizens of South Carolina to use these means of extricating themselves from their difficulties; but I would ask the gentlemen, if they entertain any well founded apprehensions that the British merchants, for the trifling difference of the proposed tonnage duty, will neglect to call upon them, and collect in their debts in this manner? But if they had not this inducement, the duty is too inconsiderable to retard them from pursuing the profitable business of our carrying trade. Can it be thought, when we have so fair an opportunity to tax foreigners, that we should be acting the manly

The question on concurring with the Senate in their amendments to the bill was carried, with an amend ment, that the members of the State Legislatures be directed to take the oath at their next sessions respectively.

The bill was, by order of the House, returned to the Senate as amended.

Mr. LAWRENCE, from New York, presented to the House an application, in the name and behalf of the Legislature of that State, addressed to the Congress of the United States; which being read, was ordered to be filed.

DUTIES ON TONNAGE.

The House resumed the consideration of Mr. SMITH'S motion to reduce the tonnage duty on the vessels of foreign countries in alliance with the United States, from thirty cents per ton to twenty cents.

Mr. LIVERMORE.-I rise against striking out thirty cents to insert twenty. Probably, Mr. Speaker, if the motion had been instead of twenty, to insert fifty, I should not have risen to oppose the motion. Thirty cents I consider rather too small than too large an encouragement to navigation. I am sorry to find, sir, that this subject has been considered in the light of an opposition between the two extremes of the continent; because I apprehend every individual in the United States is alike interested; it is the mark of an honorable system necessary to the good of the whole. However, if gentlemen still think that any part of this system of finance bears harder on one part than on another, I shall

H. OF R.]

part

Duties on Tonnage.

to shrink from the experiment? I ask, would it be following their own example? Does she admit us to a participation in her carrying trade? Are we the carriers of our own produce into the West India islands, where they cannot make a shift to live without our assistance? Yet every person knows it would be our interest to go there, and we should be glad to have the privilege, on moderate terms, as well as Great Britain has, to trade to the Southern States; but, instead of a reciprocal advantage arising from our intercourse with Britain, she will not admit us into her ports in that quarter, upon any terms whatever. We cannot get from there even a single hogshead of sugar, while their ships get full freighted here. The British merchant cannot complain of a trifling duty of only one hundred and fifty dollars upon a vessel of three hundred tons; why, sir, it is so inconsiderable that it could not be felt, or hardly thought of. If we agree to this duty, we shall have something to give up to Britain when she is willing to enter into treaty with us for those advantages we mean to stipulate for in their West India trade. That is a profitable branch of business, and the people are ready to return to it as soon as they have it in their power. It is more profitable to our people than ever the carrying trade to the southward will be, because it is more in their way. But Great Britain will not be induced by a small temptation to favor our commerce; she is jealous of the profits arising from her carrying trade, and will admit none that she can help to participate in that business. We have now an opportunity of making our own terms, and have little more to do than take hold of the advantages which are, as it were, put into our hands.

[MAY, 1789.

part of the United States. If I understand the matter rightly, the duty is to pervade the whole, and if there be benefit arising from the measure, it may be taken by all. But it will encourage the ships of the Northern States, gentlemen say. I trust it will; but does not the effect of the benefit expand to every part? A system cannot be improper which, beside procuring considerable revenue, operates beneficially on a great part of the community, without injury to any. Thus it is, that a duty on clothing is eligible; while it raises revenue it promotes fr gality and industry; a duty on rum is said to im prove the morals of the people, by lessening the consumption, therefore it is proper; though, by the by, I question whether the duty we have laid on spirits will lessen the consumption. The tonnage duty, beside raising revenue, gives encouragement to the industry of ship-builders; but this encouragement is not confined to Northern States it may be participated in by the middle and southern ones. But then it is said that the Southern States are not possessed of navigation. Why are they not? They certainly might become proprie tors of ships if they thought proper. The crops they raise will purchase ships, if they have not the convenience for building them; if they make more profit by their produce than by ship-building, so much the happier are they, and so much the better able to contribute their share of the public taxes. From all of these considerations, I am induced to think, that the duty agreed to by the committee is rather too low than too high, at any rate it cannot be thought too high.

Mr. BLAND.I am in favor of the lowest sum, although I am a friend of the proposed discrimination. I conceive, Mr. Speaker, that it is a most It has been said, by another gentleman from important duty incumbent upon the Legislature, South Carolina, (Mr. TUCKER,) that this is not to attend particularly to the interest of the agria tax upon Great Britain, but a bounty in favor cultural part of the United States. I do not of our brethren of the Eastern States, who will think we are prepared, at this early period, to get the money for two-thirds of the tonnage em- give to commerce the high encouragement proployed in America, from the planters and farm- posed by the resolution before you. The gentleers who send their productions to market. Let man who was last up observed, that the British us examine this point a little. Do not we all be- merchants would not be deterred by the tonnage lieve that the consumer pays the duty on every duty from coming to take our produce in payment thing he consumes? This is a universal maxim, of their debts. He may be mistaken in this opinand although it may not be strictly true to the ion; he should recollect the new Constitution utmost nicety of calculation, yet it is generally makes treaties the supreme law of the land, and true. Is the tax on molasses paid by the planter under that foreigners may recover, in the federal in the West Indies? By no means; it is a duty courts, the amount of their debts by a legal propaid by the people who use it, either raw in sub-cess; the severe execution of this law may enable stance, or distilled into spirit. No person can possibly conceive, that the duties we pay on merchandise imported, is a duty paid by the people of foreign countries from whence we get them; nor can they say that they are any more necessaries of life than the rice, flour, iron, and lumber we ship to other nations.

them to obtain our produce even at a cheaper rate than what it now sells for. Independent of our want of tonnage to transport our commodities, we should feel considerable disadvantages; but being at the mercy of the British merchants for our transportation, the Southern States will suffer prodigiously by a duty on their shipping, as they will be forced to employ them, and to give them what they demand.

Another idea is strongly insisted upon, that the duty in contemplation is too great a sacrifice to make in favor of the Northern States, that Gentlemen say, they have it in contemplation thirty cents is much too high a duty on the ships to raise revenue by a tonnage duty. I think, Mr. of our allies, or too great an encouragement to Speaker, it is but doubtful policy to lay a tax on the Northern ship-building. In the first place, commerce, and burden the agriculture of America. we are not laying a burden upon any particular | If you aim at expelling foreigners, I have serious

MAY, 1789.1

Duties on Tonnage.

[H. OF R.

country. I do not know how it happens, that gentlemen give up the idea of revenue from this source; but to my mind, the revenue derived from a foreign tonnage will be very considerable, and paid by the people of other nations; for, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, I can demonstrate, that considerable quantities of our produce will go to a market where our vessels cannot go, and that the consumer, in such case, must pay the duties we lay on the ships that carry on that trade. I instanced several articles so circumstanced on a former occasion; it will be unnecessary to repeat them to the House.

apprehensions you will throw the trade of the people will gratify them in this, if we can show Union into a species of convulsion that may prove that the support of their interest is intimately dangerous. Is it proper, therefore, to risk a sub-connected with the interest' and welfare of their ject of such magnitude at present? If the policy of encouraging ship-building in the manner proposed was clear, it would be a different case; but there is even in this House a great contrariety of opinion on that point. From this circumstance, I conclude that the measure under consideration is of questionable policy. I should therefore be in favor of adopting some temporary system, in order to give time to the House to get information relative to the state of agriculture and commerce; for without a more perfect knowledge of those two interests, than we at present have, I believe our regulations will be imperfect, if not inexpedient. Mr. JACKSON.-Are we of the Southern States to lose our agricultural advantages? If we cannot carry our produce to market, we are cut off from the means of paying our debts, or improving our country. This, in our deplorable situation, will unpeople our lands, for no State is in such a situation as Georgia and South Carolina. New Jersey suffered a great deal no doubt from the ravages of war, but were they so generally exiled; and their property laid in ruins? Are they at this moment warring on their frontiers? Have they heavy debts hanging over their heads? No, New Jersey cannot now be so distressed; she has successfully recovered, and her wounds are nearly healed over, while those of South Carolina and Georgia are deep and painful as ever. If our commerce is restrained, how are we to pay our debts? No merchant will take our produce, unless he can export and dispose of it to advantage. What will he do, then? Why, sir, the poor planter must be left to his mercy, and we know the tender mercies of the British nation to be cruelty. If this is not experienced in the Eastern States, it is happy for them; but the iron hand of oppression is held over the Southern ones. I dread every thing that can increase its weight, fearful lest it check the operations of industry. The agricultural interest ought to be encouraged and protected, instead of depressed, this being the principal and leading interest of the United States, requiring the serious attention of the Legislature, and we ought to be governed, on this occasion, by what will be most conducive to its support.

Mr. FITZSIMONS.-I consider this as a very important subject, Mr. Speaker; it is of considerable importance as it respects the State I have the honor to represent. Some gentlemen have seemed to suppose, that the duties we have imposed are favorable to commerce, and that we have done a great deal to befriend those engaged in that pursuit; but, sir, it is not true that an impost is an encouragement to commerce, the direct contrary is the fact. Look at the revenue then which you are about to derive from that interest, and say, if it does not require some degree of protection in return. All that your merchants ask, or expect, for the sacrifices they make for the general good, is, that a preference be given to American shipping. The Representatives of the 1st CON.-10

How it becomes contemplated by some gentlemen, that the tonnage duty on foreign vessels will be exclusively paid by the Southern States, I cannot tell; I think they are not well warranted in such a supposition. The calculation of the tonnage employed in America, as stated, and I believe it was stated from good authority, by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) does not support the opinion. The foreign tonnage by that calculation is, Massachusetts, 8,000; New York, 30,000; Pennsylvania, 28,000; Maryland, 26,000; Virginia, 29,000; South Carolina, 25,000; and Georgia, 13,000; (I leave out fractional parts of thousands.) Now, if it is really as gentlemen suppose, but which I do not think, that the whole of this revenue falls upon the individual State where the duty is collected, where is the great inequality that has been spoken of? Look once more at what each contributes, and see if the disproportion is so great as apprehended. But admitting the inequality, is its inconvenience to be compared to the great national advantages resulting from such encouragement?

It was said, by some gentleman on a former day, that a considerable part of the produce was lying upon hand for want of shipping to carry it off, and in the State where this is the case no tonnage duty exists. I do not know from whence the information came; but I doubt the gentleman was deceived in assigning the cause why the produce was left to perish in the warehouses. I believe, where it has often happened that considerable loss has been sustained by purchasing articles at too high a rate, those people who have met with the misfortune are apt to decline giving a price for it. The gentleman, I think, acknowledged that the merchants concerned in shipping the rice of the Southern States, had met with a loss of from 20 to 50 per cent. on what they sent abroad. If this is the case, can any body suppose they will continue a trade with this evident disadvantage? The gentlemen from the tobacco countries may expect the same; the exporters of that article have suffered similar misfortunes. We ought not, therefore, to say that the reason why our produce remains on hand is, because there is no shipping to carry it off. Such things have happened when there has been no want of shipping. If the price of produce is greater at home than abroad, it would not be transported, if the vessels were