TeachingAmericanHistory.org Homepage
Register Online About Us Search Site
Seminars & Institutes
Historical Documents Library
Audio Lectures & Discussions
Constitutional Convention
     
Home > Ratification of the Constitution > Elliot's Debates > Volume 5 > Debates in the Congress of the Confederation, from November 4, 1782, to June 21, 1783; and from February 19 to April 25, 1787.

Tuesday, March 11.

The report entered on Friday, the 7th of March, was taken into consideration. It had been sent, by order of Congress, to the superintendent of finance for his remarks, which were also on the table. These remarks were, in substance, that it would be better to turn the five per cent., ad valorem, into a tariff, founded on an enumeration of the several classes of imports, to which ought to be added a few articles of exports; that, instead of an apportionment of the residue on the states, other general revenues—from a land-tax, reduced to one fourth of a dollar per hundred acres, with a house-tax, regulated by the numbers of windows, and an excise on all spirituous liquors, to be collected at the place of distillery—ought to be substituted, and, as well as the duties on trade, made coëxistent with the public debts; the whole to be collected by persons appointed by Congress alone. And that an alternative ought to be held out to the states, either to establish the permanent revenues for the interest, or to comply with a constitutional demand of the principal within a very short period.

In order to ascertain the sense of Congress on these ideas, it was proposed that the following short questions should be taken: —

1. Shall any taxes, to operate generally throughout the states, he recommended by Congress, other than duties on foreign commerce?

2. Shall the five per cent., ad valorem, be exchanged for a tariff?

3. Shall the alternative be adopted, as proposed by the superintendent of finance?

On the first question the states were—New Hampshire, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, no; Maryland, no; Virginia, no; six noes and five ayes—lost.

On the second question there were seven ayes.

The third question was not put, its impropriety being generally proclaimed.

In consequence of the second vote in favor of a tariff, the three first paragraphs of the report were recommitted, together with the letter from the superintendent of finance.

On the fourth paragraph, on motion of Mr. Dyer, after the word "war," in the fifth line, was inserted "agreeably to the resolution of the 16th of December last."

A motion was made by Mr. HAMILTON and Mr. WILSON to strike out the limitation of twenty-five years, and to make the revenue coëxistent with the debts, This question was lost, the states being—New Hampshire, no; Massachusetts, no; Connecticut, divided; New York, ay; New Jersey, ay; Pennsylvania, ay; Delaware, ay; Maryland, ay; Virginia, no; North Carolina, ay; South Carolina, no.

A motion was made by Mr. HAMILTON and Mr. WILSON to strike out the clauses relative to the appointment of collectors, and to provide that the collectors should be inhabitants of the states within which they should collect; should be nominated b Congress and appointed by the states; and in case such nomination should not be accepted or rejected within—days, it should stand good. On this question there were five ayes and six noes.


 

         
Master of American History and Government:
Free Saturday Seminars for Teachers:
Free Summer Institutes for Teachers:
Historical Documents Library:
Online Audio Lectures and Discussions:
Special Exhibits:
Teaching American History Grants:


Search Site
Search Document Library

 
Printer-Friendly Version
Verizon Foundation
Support for teachingamericanhistory.org is provided by the Verizon Foundation.
A Project of the
Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University
401 College Avenue | Ashland, Ohio 44805
(419) 289-5411 | (877) 289-5411 (Toll Free)
info@TeachingAmericanHistory.org

© 2006 Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs