rectify them. I was up as often I believe as was necessary, and certainly threw so much light on two subjects that the debate ended on each.

The Vice-President, as usual, made us two or three speeches from the Chair. I will endeavor to recollect one of them. It was on the reading of a report which mentioned that the President should be received in the Senate chamber and proceed thence to the House of Representatives to be sworn: "Gentlemen, I do not know whether the framers of the Constitution had in view the two kings of Sparta or the two consuls of Rome when they formed it; one to have all the power while he held it, and the other to be nothing. Nor do I know whether the architect that formed our room and the wide chair in it (to hold two, I suppose) had the Constitution before him. Gentlemen, I feel great difficulty how to act. I am possessed of two separate powers; the one in esse and the other in posse. I am Vice-President. In this I am nothing, but I may be everything. But I am president also of the Senate. When the President comes into the Senate, what shall I be? I can not be [president] then. No, gentlemen, I can not, I can not. I wish gentlemen to think what I shall be."

Here, as if oppressed with a sense of his distressed situation, he threw himself back in his chair. A solemn silence ensued. God forgive me, for it was involuntary, but the profane muscles of my face were in tune for laughter in spite of my indisposition. Elsworth thumbed over the sheet Constitution and turned it for some time. At length he rose and addressed the Chair with the utmost gravity: "Mr. President, I have looked over the Constitution (pause), and I find, sir, it is evident and clear, sir, that wherever the Senate are to be, there, sir, you must be at the head of them. But further, sir (here he looked aghast, as if some tremendous gulf had yawned before him), I shall not pretend to say.". . .

May 5th.-The bill of yesterday [prescribing the oath] had a third reading, but now how is it to be sent to the other House? A motion was made and seconded that it go by the Secretary. From half after eleven to half after one was this important question agitated. The other House had affronted the Senate by sending up the bill in a letter, and now we would not send it down by a member. The dignity of the House was much insisted on. We were plagued again with the House of Lords and Commons, and "parliamentary" was the supplementary word to every sentence. I doubted much whether I should rise or not; however, when everybody else had something to say, I scorned to be silent. I remarked that I rose with reluctance on a subject when I had

not been able to draw any information from experience, as the State I had the honor of representing had but one House; yet from what I could learn the States which had two Houses in the Union carried on their communications by members; that this I considered as the most cordial and friendly mode of intercourse, and that I would much rather take example from our own States than from Great Britain; that this intercourse, therefore, was the one which I most sincerely wished, and thought the sooner it was adopted the better; that if our members should be ill-treated below, as had been alleged by some gentlemen, the fault would not be ours, and then we would be fully justified in adopting some other mode; that a communication by our Secretary was a bad one; that it interrupted business, as we could not proceed without him. If we meant it by way of returning the affront that had been offered to us, this was wrong. We should send the bill by letter, and this would be treating them in kind.

I was answered, or at least an attempt was made, but I was not convinced. Mr. Langdon got up soon after, and seemed to adopt all I had said, but the motion was carried against us.

...

[June 17.] In now came Mr. Jay to give information respecting Mr. Short, who was nominated to supply the place of Mr. Jefferson at the court of France while Mr. Jefferson returned home. And now the VicePresident rose to give us a discourse on the subject of form; how we should give our advice and consent. I rose, perhaps more early than might have been wished by some, and stated that this business was in the nature of an election; that the spirit of the Constitution was clearly in favor of ballot; that this mode could be applied without difficulty; that, when the person was put up in nomination, the favorable tickets should have a yea and the others should be blanks.

. . . Every Senator when voting openly would feel inconvenience from two quarters, or at least he was subjected to it. I would not say, in European language, that there would be court favor and court resentment, but there would be about the President a kind of sunshine that people in general would be well pleased to enjoy the warmth of. Openly voting against the nominations of the President would be the sure mode of losing this sunshine. This was applicable to all Senators in all cases. But there was more. A Senator, like another man, would have the interests of his friends to promote. The cause of a son or brother might be lodged in his hands. Will such a one, in such a case, wish openly to oppose the President's judgment?

But there are other inconveniences. The disappointed candidate will retaliate the injury which he feels against the Senator. It may be said the Senator's station will protect him. This can only extend to the time of his being in office, and he, too, must return to private life, where, as a private man, he must answer for the offenses given by the Senator.

June 18th. And now the mode of approving or disapproving of the nomination. I did not minute it yesterday, but our Vice-President rose in the chair and delivered his opinion how the business ought to be done. He read the Constitution, argued, and concluded: "I would rise in the chair, and put the question individually to the Senators: Do you advise and consent that Mr. Short be appointed chargé d'affaires at the court of France? Do you and do you?" Mr. Carrol spoke long for the viva voce mode. He said the ballot was productive of cab..lling and bargaining for votes. . . . The question was at last taken, and carried by eleven votes, seven against it.

[August 25.] Now came the Compensation bill. I moved the wages to be five dollars per day. I was seconded by Elmer; but on the question only he, Wyngate, and myself rose. Mr. Morris almost raged, and in his reply to me said he cared not for the arts people used to ingratiate themselves with the public. In reply I answered that I had avowed all my motives. I knew the public mind was discontented. I thought it our duty to attend to the voice of the public. I had been informed that the average of the wages of the old members of Congress was a little better than five dollars per diem. I wished to establish this as a principle. I would then have data to fix a price on, as the old wages were never complained of. Morris, Izard, and Butler were in a violent chaff. Mr. Morris moved that the pay of the Senators should be eight dollars per day.

Up now rose Izard; said that the members of the Senate went to boarding-houses, lodged in holes and corners, associated with improper company, and conversed improperly, so as to lower their dignity and character; that the delegates from South Carolina used to have £600 per year, and could live like gentlemen, etc. Butler rose; said a great deal of stuff of the same kind; that a member of the Senate should not only have a handsome income, but should spend it all. He was happy enough to look down on these things; he could despise them, but it was scandalous for a member of Congress to take any of his wages home; he should rather give it to the poor, etc. Mr. Morris likewise paid himself some compliments on his manner and conduct in life, his disregard

of money, and the little respect he paid to the common opinions of people. Mr. King got up, said the matter seemed of a delicate nature, and moved for a committee to whom the bill might be referred. This obtained, and a committee of five were appointed. By the complexion of the committee it would seem the Senate want their wages enlarged. I answered Mr. Morris in a way that gave him a bone to chaw, but I believe it is as well forgot. . . .

March 3d [1791]. — As well might I write the rambles of Harlequin Ranger or the vagaries of a pantomime as to attempt to minute the business of this morning. What with the exits and the entrances of our Otis, the announcings, the advancings, speechings, drawings, and withdrawings of Buckley and Lear, and the comings and goings of our committee of enrollment, etc., and the consequent running of doorkeepers, opening and slamming of doors, the House seemed in a continual hurricane. Speaking would have been idle, for nobody would or could hear. Had all the business been previously digested, matter or form would have been of little consequence. This, however, was not the case. It was patching, piecing, altering, and amending, and even originating new business. It was, however, only for Elsworth, King, or some of Hamilton's people to rise, and the thing was generally done. But they had overshot themselves; for, owing to little unforeseen impediments, there was no possibility of working all through, and there was to be a great dinner which must absolutely be attended to. Terrible, indeed, but no alternative—the House must meet at six o'clock.

In the evening by candle-light. When I saw the merry mood in which the Senate assembled, I was ready to laugh. When I considered the occasion, I was almost disposed to give way to a very different emotion. I did, however, neither the one nor the other; and, feeling myself of as little importance as I had ever done in my life, I took pen and paper and determined, if possible, to keep pace with the hurry of business as it passed, which I expected would now be very rapid, as I had no doubt that Hamilton's clerks had put the last hand to everything. . . .

There now was such confusion with Otis, Buckley, Lear, our committee of enrollment, etc., that I confess I lost their arrangement. Indeed, I am apt to believe if they had any they lost it themselves. They all agreed at last that the business was done. The President left the chair, and the members scampered down-stairs. I stayed a moment to pack up my papers. Dalton alone came to me, and said he supposed

we two would not see each other soon. We exchanged wishes for mutual welfare. As I left the Hall, I gave it a look with that kind of satisfaction which a man feels on leaving a place where he has been ill at ease, being fully satisfied that many a culprit has served two years at the wheelbarrow without feeling half the pain and mortification that I experienced in my honorable station..

William Maclay, Journal (edited by Edgar S. Maclay, New York, 1890), 1-413 passim.

78. First Tariff Debate (1789)

BY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Financial inadequacy of the Confederation was one of the great causes of the new Constitution; hence, as soon as the House of Representatives convened, a revenue measure providing for import duties was introduced by Madison. These duties were to be the main financial support of the new government, and the bill was primarily intended to raise revenue. In the discussions, however, the germs of most of the future tariff arguments are to be found. — Bibliography: Providence Public Library, Monthly Reference Lists, II, 44-45; Bowker and Iles, Reader's Guide in Economic, Social, and Political Science, 54-64; Channing and Hart, Guide, § 158. — For another discussion of the tariff question, see No. 130 below.

[April 9, 1789.] MR.

...

R. HARTLEY. . . If we consult the history of the ancient world, we shall see that they have thought proper, for a long time past, to give great encouragement to the establishment of manufactures, by laying such partial duties on the importation of foreign goods, as to give the home manufactures a considerable advantage in the price when brought to market. It is also well known to this committee, that there are many articles that will bear a higher duty than others, which are to remain in the common mass, and be taxed with a certain impost ad valorem. From this view of the subject, I think it both politic and just that the fostering hand of the General Government should extend to all those manufactures which will tend to national utility. I am therefore sorry that gentlemen seem to fix their minds to so early a period as 1783; for we very well know our circumstances are much changed since that time: we had then but few manufactures among us, and the vast quantities of goods that flowed in upon us from Europe, at the conclusion of the war, rendered those few almost useless; since then we have been forced by necessity, and various