The attention of the States called to the financial distress of the country and earnestly pressed "to remove these obstacles, which disturb the harmony of the Union, which embarrass its councils, and obstruct its operations."

February 15, 1786.-Messrs. King, Pinckney, Kean, Monroe, and Petit, to whom were referred the reports and documents concerning the system of general revenue, recommended by Congress April 18, 1783, reported "that seven States have granted the impost," conditioned on the other States granting it; two States granted it with a proviso, and four had not decided.

"In the course of this inquiry, it most clearly appeared, that the requisitions of Congress for eight years past have been so irregular in their operation, so uncertain in their collection, and so evidently unproductive, that a reliance on them in future as a source from whence moneys are to be drawn to discharge the engagements of the Confederacy, definite as they are in time and amount, would not be less dishonorable to the understanding of those who entertain such confidence, than it would be dangerous to the welfare and peace of the Union. The committee are therefore seriously impressed with the indispensable obligation that Congress are under of representing to the immediate and impartial consideration of the several States the utter impossibility of maintaining and preserving the faith of the Federal Government by temporary requisitions on the States, and the consequent necessity of an early and complete accession of all the States to the revenue system of the 18th April, 1783. Only $2,457,987 were received in more than four years, when requisitions, in the most forcible manner, pressed on the States the payment of much larger sums.'

"It has become the duty of Congress to declare most explicitly that the crisis has arrived when the people must decide whether they support their rank as a nation by maintaining the public faith at home and abroad, or whether for want of a timely exertion in establishing a general revenue they will hazard not only the existence of the Union, but of those great and invaluable privileges for which they have so arduously and so honorably contended."

Congress adopted the report and again urged the States to agree to the plan of April 18, 1783, and warned them of the "fatal evils which will inevitably flow from a breach of the public faith."

August 2, 1786.-Congress again considered the subject of finances, and made a requisition on the States for expenses of 1786.

Again, September 15, 1786, the subject of requisitions was considered, and again October 21, 1786.

October 11, 1787.-Congress appointed the quotas of the several States of the sum of $1,700,407, and "pressed on the States the absolute necessity of their making payment of their arrears in specie, as it is the only fund on which Congress can rely for the support of the Federal Government."

August 20, 1788.-Congress made a requisition on the States for the year 1788 of $1,686,541, and urged payment on or before 1st July,

1789.

4.-DEBATES ON ADOPTION OF ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.

July 12, 1776.-On Article XI of the original draft, Mr. Chase moved that the quotas of the colonies be paid into the common treasury by the number of white inhabitants." He observed that negroes are property; and, therefore, the method proposed would tax Southern States according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly. He admitted that taxation should be always in proportion to property, but the rule could never be adopted in practice, while the number of inhabitants could always be obtained, and was a tolerably good criterion of property; but this mode should not consider negroes as members of the State.

Mr. ADAMS observed that the numbers of people were taken by this article as an index of the wealth of the State and not as subjects of taxation.

Mr. PAYNE urged the original resolution of Congress to proportion the quotas of the States to the number of souls.

Dr. WITHERSPOON was of opinion that the value of lands and horses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation; and that it was practicable to obtain such a valuation. This is the true barometer of wealth. The question being put, the amendment by Mr. Chase was rejectedaye, 7; no, 5; one divided.

This debate was on Article XI of the Articles of Confederation :

All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States, in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted to or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and the improvements thereon shall be estiinated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled shall, from to time direct and appoint. The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.

5.-DEBATES IN THE CONGRESS OF THE CONFEDERATION.

January 8-10, 1783.—On the report (requiring the States to value the land and return the valuations to Congress) for valuing the land conformably to the rule laid down in the Federal Articles, the delegate from Connecticut contended for postponing the subject during the war, alleging the impediments.

*

Others, particularly Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Madison, were of opinion that the rule of the Confederation was a chimerical one, since, if the intervention of the individual States were employed, their interests would give a bias to their judgments, or that at least suspicions of such a bias would prevail; and without their intervention it could not be executed but at an expense, delay, and uncertainty which were inadmissible; that it would perhaps be, therefore, preferable to represent these difficulties to the States, and recommend an exchange of this rule of dividing the public burdens for one more simple, easy, and equal.

The delegates from South Carolina generally, and particularly Mr. Rutledge, advocated the propriety of the constitutional rule, and of an adherence to it, and of the safety of the mode in question arising from the honor of the States.

January 27, 1783.—Mr. WILSON observed that in one point only the United States had appeared to be deficient, and that was a cheerful payment of taxes. This peculiar repugnance he supposed proceeded, first, from the odious light in which they had been under the old government in the habit of regarding them; secondly, from the direct manner in which taxes in this country had been laid; whereas in other countries taxes were paid in a way that was little felt at the time. ** An inability, therefore, could not be urged as a plea for the extreme deficiency of the revenue contributed by the States, which did not amount during the past year to half a million of dollars; that is, to one-sixth of a dol lar per head.

He concluded by moving that it be—

Resolved, That it is the opinion of Congress that complete justice cannot be done to the creditors of the United States, nor the restoration of public credit be effected, nor

he future exigencies of the war provided for, but by the establishment of general funds, to be collected by Congress.

Mr. GORHAM favored the general idea of the motion. He thought, however, it was inaccurately expressed, since the word "general" might be understood to refer to every possible object of taxation, as well as to the operation of a particular tax throughout the States. He observed that the non-payment of the $1,200,000 demanded by Congress for paying the interest of the debts for the year demonstrated that the constitutional mode of annual requisitions was defective; he intimated that lands were already sufficiently taxed, and that polls and commerce were the proper objects.

At his instance the latter part of the motion was so amended as to run, "establishment of permanent and adequate funds to operate generally throughout the United States."

Mr. HAMILTON went extensively into the subject; the sum of it was as follows: He observed that funds considered as permanent sources of revenue were of two kinds: First. Such as would extend generally and uniformly throughout the United States, and would be collected under the authority of Congress Secondly. Such as might be established separately within each State, and might consist of any objects which were chosen by the States, and might be collected either under the authority of the States or of Congress. Funds of the first kind, he contended, were preferable, as being, first, more simple, the difficulties attending the mode of fixing the quotas laid down in the Confederation rendering it extremely complicated, and in a manner insuperable; secondly, as being more certain, since the States, according to the said plan, would probably retain the collection of the revenue; thirdly, as being more economical, since the collection would be effected with fewer officers under the management of Congress than under that of the States.

* *

Mr. DYER expressed a strong dislike to a collection by officers appointed under Congress, and supposed the States would never be brought to consent to it.

Mr. BLAND thought that the ideas of the States on the subject were so averse to a general revenue in the hands of Congress, that if such a revenue were proper it was unattainable. It would be a wiser course to pursue the rule of the Confederation, to wit, to ground the requisition on an actual valuation of lands; that Congress would then stand on firm ground and try a practicable mode.

January 28, 1783.-Mr. WOLCOTT called for a divison of the question, so as to have a distinct question on the words "to be collected by Congress," which he did not like.

Mr. WILSON considered this mode of collection as essential to the idea of a general revenue, &c. Mr. Hamilton was strenuously of the same opinion.

Mr. RUTLEDGE thought the prejudices of the people opposed the idea of a general tax, and seemed, on the whole, to be disinclined to it himself, at least if extended beyond an impost on trade, urging the necessity of pursuing a valuation of land and requisitions grounded thereon.

Mr. LEE opposed the term "general." He contended that the States would never consent to a uniform tax, because it would be unequal; that it was, moreover, repugnant to the Articles of Confederation.

Mr. ELLSWORTH observed that it was a question of great importance how far the Federal Government can or ought to exert coercion against delinquent members of the Confederacy, and that without such coercion no certainty could attend the constitutional mode, which referred every

thing to the unanimous punctuality of thirteen different councils. He considered periodical requisitions by Congress as inadequate, and was inclined to make trial of the middle mode of permanent State funds. Mr. HAMILTON dwelt long on the inefficacy of State funds. He supposed, too, that greater obstacles would arise to the execution of the plan than to that of a general revenue. He favored the collection of a general revenue by officers under the appointment of Congress.

Mr. MADISON Ccontended that the plan of periodical requisitions, aecording to the Federal Articles, was inadequate to the object proposed. If reason did not sufficiently premonish, experience has sufficiently demonstrated that a punctual and unfailing compliance by thirteen sep arate and independent governments, with periodical demands of money from Congress, can never be reckoned upon with the certainty requisite to satisfy our creditors.

March 27, 1783.—Mr. BLAND said that the value of land was the best rule.

Mr. MADISON thought the value of land could never be justly or satisfactorily obtained.

Mr. WILSON said he was in Congress when the Articles of Confederation, directing a valuation of land, were agreed to; that it was the effect of the impossibility of compromising the different ideas of the Eastern and the Southern States as to the value of slaves compared with the whites, the alternative in question.

Mr. CLARK said that the Southern States would have agreed to numbers in preference to the value of land if half of their slaves only should be included, but that the Eastern States would not concur in that proposition.

It was agreed on all sides that instead of fixing the proportion by ages, as the report proposed, it would be best to fix the proportion in absolute numbers.

The draft of a constitution submitted to the Convention of 1787 by Mr. Charles Pinckney contained the following language:

The proportion of direct taxation shall be regulated by the whole number of inhabitants of every description.

The propositions offered by Mr. Patterson provided

That whenever requisitions shall be necessary, instead of the present rule the United States in Congress be authorized to make such requisitions in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants, of every age, sex, and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes; that if such requisitions be not complied with in the time specified therein, to direct the collection thereof in the non-complying States, and for that purpose to devise and pass acts directing and authorizing the same.

6.-JOURNAL OF THE CONVENTION.

Thursday, July 5, 1787.-Mr. RUTLEDGE proposed "that suffrages of the several States be regulated and proportioned according to the sums to be paid toward the general revenue by the inhabitants of each State." July 9, 1787.-The committee of reference reported an apportionment of fifty-six members of the House among the States, and added: "But as the present situation of the States may probably alter, as well in point of wealth as in the number of inhabitants, that the legislature be authorized from time to time to augment the number of Representatives wealth and number of inhabitants."

July 10, 1787.-It was moved and seconded to add, "That, in order to ascertain alterations in the population and wealth of the States, the legislature of the United States be required to cause a proper census and estimate to be taken once in every term of years." Postponed. July 11, 1787.—Mr. WILLIAMSON proposed that, "in order to ascertain the alterations that may happen in the population and wealth of the several States, a census shall be taken of the free inhabitants of each State and three-fifths of the inhabitants of other description." Mr. RUTLEDGE proposed "that, at the end of years from the meeting of the legislature of the United States, and at the expiration of every years thereafter, the legislature of the United States be required to apportion the representation of the several States according to the principles of their wealth and population.”

July 12, 1787.-It was moved to add the following: "Provided, always, That direct taxation ought to be proportioned according to representation." Passed unanimously.

It was moved "That the rule of contribution by direct taxation for the support of the Government of the United States shall be the number of white inhabitants and three-fifths of every other description in the several States, until some other rule that shall more accurately ascertain the wealth of the several States can be devised and adopted by the legislature."

On the question to agree to the clause as amended, namely

Provided always, That representation ought to be proportioned according to direct taxation; and in order to ascertain the alteration in the direct taxation which may be required from time to time, by the changes in the relative circumstances of the States,

Resolved, That a census be taken within six years from the first meeting of the legislature of the United States, and once within the term of every ten years afterwards, of all the inhabitants of the United States, in the manner and according to the ratio recommended by Congress in their resolution of April 18, 1783, and that the legislature of the United States shall proportion the direct tax accordingly

It passed in the affirmative-6 yeas to 2 nays, and two States divided. July 13, 1787, it was moved "that from the first meeting of the legis lature of the United States, until a census shall be taken, all monies to be raised for supplying the public treasury by direct taxation shall be assessed on the inhabitants of the several States according to the number of their representatives, respectively, in the first branch."

It passed in the negative-yeas 5, nays 5.

It was moved that "all monies for supplying the public treasury, by direct taxation, shall be raised from the several States according to the number of their representatives, respectively, in the first branch."

Passed in the affirmative, yeas 5: Massachusetts, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia. Nays, 4: Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland. Divided, Pennsylvania, 1.

July 16, 1787.-The report from the grand committee passed in the affirmative:

Provided, That representation ought to be proportioned according to direct taxation; and in order to ascertain the alteration in the direct taxation which may be required from time to time, by the changes in the relative circumstances of the States,

Resolved, That a census be taken within six years *** of all the inhabitants of the United States * * * and that the legislature of the United States shall proportion the direct taxation accordingly.

August 6, 1787.-The committee of five, Rutledge, Randolph, Gorham, Ellsworth, and Wilson, reported a draft of a constitution:

ARTICLE 7, SECTION 3.-The proportions of direct taxation shall be regulated by the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex, and