Tuesday, March 4, and Wednesday, March 5.
The motion of Mr. HAMILTON, on the Journal, relative to abatement of the quotas of distressed states, was rejected, partly because the principle was disapproved by some, and partly because it was thought improper to be separated from other objects to be recommended to the states. The latter motive produced the motion for postponing, which was lost.
The committee to whom had been referred the letters of resignation of Mr. Morris, reported, as their opinion, that it was not necessary for Congress immediately to take any steps thereon. They considered the resignation as conditional, and that, if it should eventually take place at the time designated, there was no necessity for immediate provision to be made.
Mr. BLAND moved, "that a committee be appointed to devise the most proper means of arranging the department of finance."
This motion produced, on these two days, lengthy and warm debates; Mr. LEE and Mr. BLAND, on one side; disparaging the administration of Mr. Morris, and throwing oblique censure on his character. They considered his letter as an insult to Congress; and Mr. LEE declared that the man who had published to all the world Such a picture of our national character and finances was unfit to be a minister of the latter. On the other side, Mr. WILSON and Mr. HAMILTON went into a copious defence and panegyric of Mr. Morris; the ruin in which his resignation, if it should take place, would involve public credit and all the operations dependent on it; and the decency, though firmness, of his letters. The former observed, that the declaration of Mr. Morris, that be would not be the minister of injustice, could not be meant to reflect on Congress, because they had declared the funds desired by Mr. Morris to be necessary; and that the friends of the latter could not wish for a more honorable occasion for his retreat from public life, if they did not prefer the public interest to considerations of friendship. Other members were divided as to the propriety of the letters in question. In general, however, they were thought reprehensible; as in general, also, a conviction prevailed of the personal merit and public importance of Mr. Morris. All impartial members foresaw the most alarming consequences from his resignation. The prevailing objection to Mr. Bland’s motion was, that its avowed object and tendency was to reëstablish a board, in place of a single minister of finance. These who apprehended that, ultimately, this might be unavoidable, thought it so objectionable that nothing but the last necessity would justify it. The motion of Mr. BLAND was lost, and a committee appointed, generally, on the letters of Mr. Morris.