Mr. BLAINE. I desire to submit a few re marks in support of the amendment. I have nothing whatever to say about the bill introduced by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. SrsVENSfi Before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, to urge the justice. expediency, and necessity of adopting this measure, I will, with the indulgence of the House, present in brief detail the action of our Government in the cases of a similar na ture that have thus far arisen in our history. I am aware that precedent alone is not a sufficient justification for legislative action, but where precedent and principle are in harmony. the argument is complete and the conclusion irre sistible. The most dprominent and important subject that engage the attention of the 1st congress under the Federal Constitution was the unding of the war debt of the Revolution. The system adopted was mainly or almost precisely that recommended by Mr. Hamilton, in his celebrated report as SecyTreasury, January 9, 1700. His scheme embraced not merely the debt of the Confederation, or the continental debt, socalled, but also the debts of the several States contracted in the war. He ardently and successfsuul pporting e urge the assumption Of these debts by the general Government, and admirably epitomized the argument in favor of the measure in the following paragraph. which I quote from his report: “ the equalizing of the condition of the citizens of ever State and exoneratingthose of the Statesmost inde led from partial burdens which would press upon themin consequenceof exertions in a opnimon cause.is not completelyfulfilled untilthe entiredebt of every State contracted in relation to the war is embracedin one general and comrehensiVeplan. The inconvenience to the U.S. of disbur dening the States which are still incumbered with considerable debts would hear no prortion to the inconvenience which they would feel i left to strug gle with those debts unaided.” No measure was ever discussed more thor oughly or more ably in the American congress. The opposition to it was very consider able, but the c ort to prevent its passage was by parliamentary tactics and embarrassing amendments. rather than by directly meeting the issue. Nor was the constitutionality of the measure seriously questioned. Insiniiations against it were several times thrown out, but were effectually silenegl by Elbridge Gerry, who asserted that the subject of assuming the State debts had been before the Federal convention and was passed over on the ground that “the Constitution gave sufficient power in the premisesto congress.” Roger Sherman sustained Mr. Gerry in this statement, with the limitation that “ the assumption should be confined to debts which were contracted by the States for the common good of the Union and not for merelocalpurposes, ” alimitation which received general as t and approval. It is worthy of note, in this connection, that alter the lapse of 50 years, when the school of “strict constructionists” had refined their theories to the utmost, they never took a different position from that announced by Mr. Sherman in the foregoing extract. In the famous series of resolutionsintroduced into the U.S. Senate by Mr. Benton in the session of 1830 40in opposition to the General Government assuming the then existing debts of the States, the whole creed of strict construction was set forth at great length, and yet the 1st resolution was in words which implied, if they did not assert, that State debts contracted for the common good of the Union, and not for local purposes, might be constitutionally as sumedP by the nation. I conclude, therefore, that no one will question the competency of Congress to pass the bill under discussion. In the protracted and able debate to which I have referred as taking place in the 1st Congress in rerd to the assumption of the revolutionary cbt, Mr. William Smith, of SCarolina, one of the ablest men of that day, spoke as follows: “I cannot permit myself to doubt that Congress will decide the question upon principles of equity and justice. Nothing can appear to me to he more clear than thata statedebtbeingincurred in therom mon defenseshould bemadea commonburden. We should consider ouiselics as settling the atIairs of a cat family and bestudious to equalize the task to e borne by every one.” Mr. Jeremiah Wadsworth, of Connecticut, said: "I consider the debt of my Statenow due as areal continental debt of the most meritorious class: nor can I enSily persuademyselfto provide funds for the other continental debts:ind lcaiethocitisens of connecticut to groan under a direct tax their only resource – to pay awurdebtwtheh they do not owe except as suretics for the continent." Mr. Roger Sherman, from the same State, said, with characteristic and emphatic blunt ness: "I considerthe debts incurred by the severalStates in support of the war and for the common defenseand general welfare as the debts of the U.S. ” Mr. the odoric Bland. of Virginia, said: “Some gentlemen are very desirous to sever the fundingo the debt of the U.S. from that of the States.though both of them have beenincurred for the same purpose.namely. the common defense againstthe commonenemy. t would. in my opinion. be like separating man and Wife or like amputating the limbs from the body.” Mr. Elias Boudiuot, of NewJersey, said: " There mustbethe greatest e nity in appropriating that treasure.supplied by the nion at large. to the payment of those debts contracted for the common defenseof the Union.“ “Mr. Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, asked: Were not the State debtse ontractedfor the war? It appears by the booksin the public ofliecs that they were. Will anyone say that the whole expenseof defending our commonliberty ought not to be a common chargcY" The enliredebt wase reatedby the war and itse enis to hein strictgon formity with the letter as well as the spirit at the Constitution to assumeit." Mr Fisher Ames remarked: "That which is due on account of the war should fall not unequally upon States but equally upon the whole society. If some States should lose wealth and population and others increase; ifnew Statesshould JOll! the Union or spring up within it and the western Wilderness be thronged with people, the burden will be equalized upon all the citizens. Liberty and independence were procured for the whole why, then should not.all contribute to the price I These uotations might be indefinitely multiplied. I have selected a few from the speeches oi emincut men in Congress, a great majority of whom supported the measure. The most piominent of those who opposed it was Mr. adison, and he rounded his chief objection on the fact, that the assumption applied to the debts as then existing in 1790, whereas, in his judgment, it ought to take them as they stood at the close of the war in 1783, since which time Virginia had made great efforts to liquidate a portion of her obligations. The result of the discussion was a victory for those who advocated assumption, and the following table will show the amount liquidated for each State by substituting U.S. bonds for local certificates of indebtedness: NewHampshire 8300.000 Massachusetts 4,000.000 RhdIsland 200.0(1) Connecticut 1.60.1000 NewYork. 1.200.000 NewJersey 800.000 Pennsylvania 2.200.000 claware 200.000 Maryland 800.000 Virginia 3.500.000 NCarolina 2.400.000 BGoeuotrhg iaC.arolina, 4.000.000. 300,000 Total. 821.500.0110 An amount vastly greater in proportion to the wealth and population of the country at that day than the sum proposed in the pending bill bears to the wea th and population of the country now. Beside these direct assumptions of State in debtedness, Congress instituted a commission at tesame time whose duty itwas to “receive and examine all claims which shall be exhib ited to them befdre the lst day of July, A. D. 1701, and to determine upon all such as shall have accrued for the general or particular de fense during the war. according to the principles of general equit, although such claims may not be sanctione by the resolves of congress nor supported by regular vouchers.” uch were tie liberal terms applied by the 1st Congress to the settlement and payment of all the debts incurred by the States in the war for independence. The precedent thus established on such broad and may nanimous ground has been folloWed by our government ever since in the liquidation of the war claims of States. In the war 0f1812 claims of this kind were not large for the reason that the troops employed, volunteer as well as regular, were mainly raised by the General Government, and the agency of the States was not used to any great egree. But to the extent that the States made advances, every dollar was repaid on the most liberal principles, the only limit or qualification bein that the money whose restitution was claime “had been actually expended for the use and benefit of the U.S. during the late war with GreatBritain.” and the principle was car ried further than simply refunding the amounts advanced, for interest was also subsequently allowed to every State except Massachusetts, upon all debts incurred on behalf of the common cause. The payment of interest was a much discussed and J long delayed act, and its accomplishment was finally due to the clear and forcible presentation of the merits and rightfulness of the policy, by President Mon roe, in a message to Congress during the session of 1824 35. In consequence og the argument and influence of the resident, interest was allowed to Virginia “ on all sums on which she had paid interest;” and subsequently, by separate acts, each State that had made advances for war purposes was allowed interest in full thereon, with the exception just noted, and a hill to refund interest to Massachusetts has been before congress for severalyears past. Reference maybe ha to U.S. Statutes at Large, volume 4,pages 161, 175, 192, 241, 499. In the war with Mexico the principle of reimburse ment to the States was again asserted and enforced in the most emphatic manner. As early as March 8, 1847, before the war had continued a single year. Congress, by JtResolution, provided for refunding, as follows: " Resolvedby the Senate and 110m:of Reprumla lines the U.S.A. in Congress assembled, hat the SecyWar be.nnd he is hereby authorized and required to cause to be refunded to the several Statesor to individuals, for servicesren dered acting under the authority of any State, the amount of expensesincurred by them in organizing. subsisting and transporting volunteers previous to their being mustere and received into the service [fthe U.S. for the present war." The limitation containedin the phrase, “ acting under the authority of any State, ” prevented the allowance of many claims which were manifestly fair and equitable. Counties and municipal corporations also presented claims which did not seem to be inclued within the terms of the resolution. To remedy these defects Congress passed an act July 2, 1848, the 1st section of which was in the following comrchensive terms, closely following in spirit and etter the legislation of the 1st Congress touching the revolutionary war debt of States: “ Be it macled.d c" That the provisionsof the jtResolution it proved March 3. 1847.entitled A resolution to reand money to the Statesthat have supplied volunteers. &c. be, and the sameare hereby, extendedso asto embrace all cases of expenses here tpoofrotrineginveoulrurnetdeeinrsorrgeavnioiziiinsgto. Stuhbesirist binegin, ganmdutsrtaenrsed and received intot e U.S. service for the present war. whether by States, counties. corporations or individuals. either notin with or without the authority of any State: Prom ml.however.That proofshall bemadeto the satisfaction of the SecyWar of the amount thus expended and that the same was necessary and proper for the troops aforesaid." The restriction in the concluding clause of the section just quoted was subsequently removed by Congress, and instead of any liuiitation whatever it was ordered with an extrava gance of liberality thatthese State claims should be aid “as presented.” et it be borne in mind that a large proortion of the money thus refunded to States adbeen paid for bounties to volunteers. Especially was this the case in the debt incurred in the revolutionary war. During that severe ordeal of patriotism and valor, bounties for soldiers were paid in all the States, and to a larger extent, all things considered, than were aid even at the most extravagant period of the late war. In the State of Massachusetts, in the year USO and my authority is Elbridge G erry a bounty of $280 to $300 was paid in gold, and the s ccial war tax was so severe that a single mere mm in Boston aid that year $7,000 in gold toward that fund). I submit that reckoning the difference in the value of money, no such bounties and no such taxes were paid anywhere during the late war for the Union. The precedents, then, for such legislation as is contemplated in the pending bill, are ample and uniform in our congressional history. he principles on which this legislation is based are so plain as to scarcely need any argument in support of them, and yet, with your leave, I will proceed to point out some reasons of.peciiliar force, as it seems to me, why the State debts incurred in the war for the Union should be made a common charge on the national Treasury. If such reimbursement was just and equitable in former wars, it is so now in a far more enlarged and imperative sense. I need not remind the House, Mr. Chairman, that during the past 5 years all the loyal States have been compelled to raise large sums of money in aid and support of the war for the Union. The statistics of expenditure have been gathered with all practicable exactness by the special committee which reported the pending bill, and the aggregate in the loyal States reaches well nigh 500 million dollars. Nor was this vast sum of money exended fruit lcssly, needlessly, or wastefully. Fdo not state the case too strongly when I assert that without it the war would not and could not have succeeded. Had not volunteering been stimulated and sustained by the State and local bounties we should have been thrown back on the “rough and perilous edge” of the draft in its naked, indiscriminate, and most repulsive form. At several of the most critical junctures of the war, when reverses had been experienced, when popular ardor and hope were chilled, and when the Administration ielt weak and timid, the revival of patriotism and courage throughout the land had its origin in the stimulus imparted to fresh volunteering by the large inducement of tbe.local bounties. The most that can be said in favor of the conscription law is that it operated as an incentive to enlistmcuts, being held interrorem over the people, and inducing 1,000s to volunteer for bounties in order to avoid the possible alternative of being drafted into the service without other pecuniary reward than the monthly pay. It is not discreditable to American patriotism that our people have a deep prejudice against conscriptions, and it was therefore wise, nay, it was absolutely necessary, for the strength, harmony, and success of the Union cause, that the loyal States, counties, cities, and towns should offer bounties sufficient to fill the ranks of our Army without a ruthless resort to the draft. The money thus expended for bounties was, I repeat, wisely, and in the main economically, expended, far more carefully, indeed, than the average of Federal disbursements during the war. lhough raised by local effort, every dollar of it was e signed for the good of the national cause; and hence every dollar is fairly reimbursable from the national Treasury and this great efibrt on the part of the loyal States was not made for themselves only. success of the Union cause was really of no more importance to them than to the revolted States, to the States yet to grow up on our vast Western domain, and, indeed, to all the generations that are to follow us as American citizens and the inheritors of republican Government and constitutional liberty. The contest was not local, but general; not for ourselves, but for mankind; not merely for today, but for all time. The 25 loyal States derive no more advantage from the victorious issue of the war than do the 11 revolted State! which were thereby saved from anarchy and destruction, or the 40 new States that are yet to be added to the Union, and which never have had an opportunity to ninewtoyaldn organized existence but or the successful strug gle which has assured to them the fostering care and protecting aegisof the great Republic. The contest, then was one in which all the States, both now ciristing and hereafter to be organized were equally interested; and what justice, what semblance even of fair dealing is there in leaving a heavy burden of debt on Maine while Nevadahas not aid 9. dollar h) the struggle; or in asking lifichigan to poui out her money and her credit like water, while Colorado ese apes without the cost of a penny? Nevada and Colorado were as much interested rospectivel in the result of the contest as Tlaine and Iichigan, and the burden should be proortionally and impartially shared betweent em. Some gentlemen, with a tender sympathy which I fail to apreciate, argue that the southern States havesu cred so severely in their abortive rebellion that they on ht not to be called on to bear anything more than their part of the national debt already contracted. What those States expended in their wicked effort to de stroy this Union is not, in my judgment, to be reckoned to their credit on the national ledger, nor is the exhaustion to which they were reduced by their insane persistence in the war, to be made the basis of an appeal to our sympathy, much less to our reason. They were ept back from suicide and redeemed with a great price,and it is but fair and honest that they should pay their full proportion of the cost, even to the uttermost farthing. But as a matter of fact let it be asserted that the lately revolted States are not burdened or embarrassed with debt. Their obligations incurred in supporting the rebellion have been or Will urges, be rendiated, so that however much certain specu ative traitors may lose, the political communities are free from debt and Will enjoy light local taxation. They are not therefore in a position to decline their fair share of the national burden, and as the tax to support that burden is raised wholly by impost and excise, it cannot fall heavily on any community until the revival of business and the devel opment of trade shall provide the means of meeting and sustaining it and in this connection let me remark, Mr. Chairman, that it is not only for the interest of the loyal States to adopt this measure, but it is preeminently for their interest to adopt it now. The subject is a dangerous one to leave open, and unless definitely and finally closed at this time it may reappear in a future congress in a form most embarrassing and detri mental to the national Treasury and the nationul credit. Whenever the Representatives are readmitted on this floor from the southern States you will find a series of propositions introduced for the relief of their constituents from losses entailed by the war. These schemes will embrace compensation for slaves emanci ted for the benefit of the Union; restitution or property seized for the use of the Federal Army; payment for losses inflicted by the march of our troops, and the nameless and number less other e aims which the extraordinaryevents of the past 5 years will so readily suggest. Let us beware how we leave open a class of meritorious claims from the loyal States with which the southern jobs may be combined and coalese ed into a gigantic onslaught upon the Federal Treasury. Pass the present measure and you at once remove the opportunity and the temptation for such a dangerous coalition. Pledge the 118 millions embraced in this bill, and you will thereby ese ape the danger of paing 1200 millions in the future. The whole matter is subject to our control today. always remain so. For many years to come, Mr. Chairman, the loyal States will in any event inevitably bear the riucipal burden in sustaining the national credit. In addition tot s, unless the pending measure prevails, the will each be called upon It may not to bear a large local debt whose interestis providedlbydirect, merciless, and I had almost said ruine us taxation. Throughout the States Represented, 0n this floor today the direct tax on propert, real and personal, will annually aver age in rethan two%. of its value, while in maliy communities it reaches the staggering rate of 3 to 3 and a half and even 4%. such taxation may be endured, and has been patiently and patriotically endured during ourgreat struggle or national existence but as a permanent c urge upon the the country, in addition to all the Fe erul taxes, it is more than can be borne without grievous afthetion. Let it be remembered that the local tax of which I am s )eaking comes in the most oppressive form. 1It is not disguised by any excise system, norlighteued by any indirection. It is so many dollars out of the earnings of the farmer, the gains of the merchant, the wages of the mechanic, and the savings of the humblest. It embarrasses every enterprise, is felt as a hardship at every fireside, and shrouds the business an commercial future with doubt and des ondency. The communities that are thus an erin have never thought and will never think of resorting to repudiation as a remedy, but their high sense of honor on this point and their determination to meet all their obligations should not be taken, asI am sorry to say it is by seine, as an argument for leaving them to strug gle unaided against their onerous and crushing urdens. But the financial question involved in this measure is not of pressin interest merely to the States that are so sore y burdened with debt and taxation. I maintain that it is of equal importance to the General Government that thesidebts he assumed, and my fear is that if this policy should be rejected serious embar rassment may result to the Treasury of the property of the U.S. When Mr. Hamilton recommended the policy of assumptoiroinginawlliyt regard to the revolutionary debt, he did not view it simply from the standoint of justice to the States but quite as much from motives of sound policy touching the interests of the Federal Treasury. To quote his own language, he declared that “the assumption of the State debts was no less a measure of sound policy than of substantial justice, and that it would contribute in an eminent degree to an orderly, stable, and satisfactory arrangement of the national finances.” The communities that are oppressed with these local debts are the same that ay almost the entire national revenue collected under the excise law, and the latter is felt as an infinitely greater burden because of its coming in addition to the heavy direct tax levied by the local authorities. Could this local tax be relieved to the extent which this bill would relieve it, the Federal tax could be paid with great case even if largely increased beyond its present rate. To illustrate my position by the pertinent figures, let me say that the ending bill if adopted would add some 118 millions to the national debt, or, in other words, it would increase it a trifle more than 4%., and would call for a corresponding increase in the amount raised to pay interest. But the immense relief that won d be experienced throughout the loyal States by the removal of these enormous direct taxes would enable them to pay.the increased excise with comparative ease and in this way the General Government would have the field to itself, and could regulate its system of taxation with far greater efficiency and far greater equity. cometing and conflicting systems of taxation can at produce mn tual injury, and if the power can be lodged wholly or mainly in one, a larger amount of money can be raised with less burden to the people than where each is compelled to make the utmost exaction to meet the demands upon it. If there be any correctness in the view just suggested, the assumption of the State debts would make a nominal rather than a real addition to the national debt. The States and communities which owe these debts are precisely the same States and communities upon which must rest the maintenance of the national credit during the entire period that it may be said to be on trial before the world. While this oppressive burden of local indebtedness is upon them, it impairs their resources and their ability to carry the national debt by even a larger amount and if the national debt is increased by refunding to the States, the local burdens are. to so the least, correlatively and proportionally reneed. This fact is so palpable and undeniable that it is Only a waste of time to repeat it. Bankers and money lenders would everywhere recognize it; and the tendencyof snch apolicy would be to strengthen the national credit throughout the world. The change of securities does not changethe amount to be raised by taxation, it only simplifies the mode of obtaining it and this phase of the case presents another striking arallel to the 1st assumption as proposed an accomplished by Mr. Hamilton. In discussing thei entical point to which I have just referred, that great master of finance dismissed it summarily with the following brief and conclusive comment: “Admitting that a provision mustbe madein some way or other for the entire debt. it will certainly follow thatnegreaterrevenueswill bercquired, whether that provision be made wholly by the U.S. pill gpfgtly by them and partly by the States sepa Another point, Mr. Chairman, in this connection, for the special attention of those Gentlemen who fear that the adoption of the pending measure would injure the national credit. Nothing is so injurious to credit as uncertainty. It is the aprehension today of what our debt maybe ratter than the knowledge of what it is that prevents our bonds sellin at a premium in gold, both at home and abroa. One source of uncertainty is found in this veryquestion of the war debts of the States. Will they be as sumed, or will they not, and if assumed. to what amount? are questions asked at all financial centers with anxious concern. So long as nothing is done the worst is feared, and the antincipatd amount of assumption will expand witht e agitation of the question. It is natural to exaggerate the unknown. Omne igno tum promagnifice. We can put an end to in jurious surmises as to what may be done, by adopting at once the very moderate and well arded proposition now under discussion. efusing to pass this bill will not quiet agitation nor remove alarm. Agitation will go on and injury to our national credit will be the inevitable result. Should the policy of assuming these debts be rejected, an act of innstice would be done entirely without rece ent thus far in the dealings between the General Government and the States. The strange spectacle would be pre sented of less than 1/3rd of the prospective number of States bearingin its most oppressive form an enormous debt, every dollar of which was contracted as much for the benefit of the other 2/3rds of the Union asfor themselves. The prejudicial effect which this would have on the Siates subjected to the burden need not be described. It would in a great degree criple their energies and retard their growth, an the climax of its balefnl influence would be made odiously and cruelly manifest in the emigration from the old to the new States, and from the North to the South, for the purpose of escaping the very tax which was incurred that the new States might be born and that the South might be saved from suicide. I could not, by any reasoning, enhance the force of such afact as this, nor strengthen the plea which it makes for the equalization of the entire debt created by the war. If further argument were needed to show the justice of reimbursing the States for theirnd vances in support of the war, it would be found in the fact that Congress, in devising a system of taxation for the Union, has deprived the States of all the means of raising money except through the instrumentality of a direct levy on real and personal property. Many of the States had previously enjoyed the advantage of certain forms of excise, tolls, and other indirect taxes, which enabled them to lighten, if not entirely remove, the burden of local government. In Massachusetts, I believe, the tax derived from the State banks for a long series of years almost supported the State govern ment; and other States had similar sources of revenue, if not proportionally so large; but the General Government, through its constitutional right to levy impost and excise, has absorbed all the easy and ready available chan nels of taxation, throwing back the States, as I have said, to the severest form of raising revenue. It is an inevitable hardship that, for necessary local purposes, the States must procure revenue by direct tax, but it is a hardship rendered almost unendnrable by its injustice when the States have in this way to raise a large sum to pay the interest and principal of a debt contracted for the good of the whole Union. The power to meet the burden having been taken from the States, common equity demands that the burden should be taken away also and the burden to which I have just referred, Mr. Chairman, falls with increased severity on the farmers and other holders of real estate, from the fact that so vast a proportion of the personal property in many communities has sought investment in Government securities, which are specially exempt from State and municipal taxation. I should certainly be the set to countenance among a breach of the nations faith in the slightest degree. We must stand by the terms “nominated in the bond, ” no matter how onerous and oppressive they may be. No hardship can arise to any of us from observing good faith on the part of the Government at all comparable with the hardship that would ensue to all of us by violatiu that faith even by the remotest hint. But wiile we all agree, trust, on this point, I submit that as the policy of the Government has made the war debt of the States bear unequally on dilierent classes of the community, and most oppres sively on the specially meritorious class, it is the imperative duty of the Government to equalize the burden by assuming an equitable share of the debt. I am not willing, Mr. Chairman, to be under stoodns making in these remarks a supplicating appeal for relief on behalf of in own State, o“r the other loyal Commonwealtlis that have borne the heat and biirden of the day” throughout the rest contest that has resulted so auspiciously or all the interests of humanity. Supplication is the language of those who have no rightto use stronger phrase. But standing here today as one of the Representatives of the people, I have a rightto demand that equal and exact justice be done to all the States of the Union, and that the Government of the Union should without cavil or hesitation pay the debts which were contracted on its own account and for its own benefit. Justice is all that the loyal States ask, and in the grand language of Mr. HamiltOn, already quoted, “justice is not completely fulfilled until the entire debt of every State contracted in relation to the war is embraced in one general and comprehensive plan of ament.”