Volume 7 / Part 1 — PART I. REPORTS AND OPINIONS WHILE SECRETARY OF STATE.

I.—Report on the methods for obtaining Fresh Water from Salt.

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred by the House of Representatives of the United States, the petition of Jacob Isaacs of Newport in Rhode Island, has examined into the truth and importance of the allegations therein set forth, and makes thereon the following report:

The petitioner sets forth, that by various experiments, with considerable labor and expense, he has discovered a method of converting salt-water into fresh, in the proportion of 8 parts out of 10, by a process so simple that it may be performed on board of vessels at sea by the common iron caboose, with small alterations, by the same fire, and in the same time, which is used for cooking the ship's provisions, and offers to convey to the government of the United States a faithful account of his art or secret, to be used by, or within the United States, on their giving to him a reward suitable to the importance of the discovery, and in the opinion of government, adequate to his expenses and the time he has devoted to the bringing it into effect.

In order to ascertain the merit of the petitioner's discovery, it becomes necessary to examine the advances already made in the art of converting salt-water into fresh.

Lord Bacon, to whom the world is indebted for the first germs of so many branches of science, had observed, that with a heat sufficient for distillation, salt will not rise in vapor, and that salt-water distilled is fresh; and it would seem, that all mankind might have observed that the earth is supplied with fresh water chiefly by exhalation from the sea, which is, in fact, an insensible distillation effected by the heat of the sun; yet this, although the most obvious, was not the first idea in the essays for converting salt-water into fresh; filtration was tried in vain, and congelation could be resorted to only in the coldest regions and seasons. In all the earlier trials by distillation, some mixture was thought necessary to aid the operation by a partial precipitation of the salt, and other foreign matters contained in sea-water. Of this kind, were the methods of Sir Richard Hawkins in the sixteenth century, of Glauber, Hauton, and Lister, in the seventeenth, and of Hales, Appleby, Butler, Chapman, Hoffman, and Dore, in the eighteenth; nor was there anything in these methods worthy noting on the present occasion, except the very simple still contrived extempore by Captain Chapman, and made from such materials as are to be found on board every ship, great or small; this was a common pot, with a wooded lid of the usual form; in the centre of which a hole was bored to receive perpendicularly, a short wooden tube made with an inch-and-a-half auger, which perpendicular tube received at its top, and at an acute angle, another tube of wood also, which descended until it joined a third of pewter made by rolling up a dish and passing it obliquely through a cask of cold water; with this simple machine he obtained two quarts of fresh water an hour, and observed that the expense of fuel would be very trifling, if the still was contrived to stand on the fire along with the ship's boiler.

In 1762, Doctor Lind, proposing to make experiment of several different mixtures, first distilled rain-water, which he supposed would be the purest, and then sea-water, without any mixture, which he expected would be the least pure, in order to arrange between these two supposed extremes, the degree of merit of the several ingredients he meant to try; "to his great surprise," as he confesses, the sea-water distilled without any mixture, was as pure as the rain-water; he pursued the discovery and established the fact, that a pure and potable fresh water may be obtained from salt-water by simple distillation, without the aid of any mixture for fining or precipitating its foreign contents. In 1767, he proposed an extempore still, which, in fact, was Chapman's, only substituting a gun-barrel instead of Chapman's pewter tube, and the hand-pump of the ship to be cut in two obliquely and joined again at an acute angle, instead of Chapman's wooden tubes bored expressly; or instead of the wooden lid and upright tube, he proposed a tea-kettle (without its lid or handle) to be turned bottom upwards over the mouth of the pot by way of still-head, and a wooden tube leading from the spout to a gun-barrel passing through a cask of water, the whole luted with equal parts of chalk and meal moistened with salt-water. With this apparatus of a pot, tea-kettle, and gun-barrel, the Dolphin, a twenty-gun ship, in her voyage around the world in 1768, from 56 gallons of sea-water and with 9 lbs. of wood and 69 lbs. of pit-coal made 42 gallons of good fresh water, at the rate of 8 gallons an hour. The Dorsetshire, in her passage from Gibraltar to Mahon in 1769, made 19 quarts of pure water in four hours with 10 lbs. of wood, and the Slambal in 1773, between Bombay and Bengal, with the hand-pump, gun-barrel, and a pot of 6 gallons of sea-water, made ten quarts of fresh water in three hours.

In 1771, Dr. Irvin putting together Lind's idea of distilling without a mixture, Chapman's still, and Dr. Franklin's method of cooling by evaporation, obtained a premium of five thousand pounds from the British parliament. He wet his tube constantly with a mop instead of passing it through a cask of water; he enlarged its bore also, in order to give a free passage to the vapor, and thereby increase its quantity by lessening the resistance or pressure on the evaporating surface. This last improvement was his own; it doubtless contributed to the success of his process; and we may suppose the enlargement of the tube to be useful to that point at which the central parts of the vapor passing through it would begin to escape condensation. Lord Mulgrave used his method in his voyage towards the north pole in 1773, making from 34 to 40 gallons of fresh water a day, without any great addition of fuel, as he says.

M. de Bougainville, in his voyage round the world, used very successfully a still which had been contrived in 1763 by Poyssonier to guard against the water being thrown over from the boiler into the pipe, by the agitation of the ship. In this, one singularity was, that the furnace or fire-box was in the middle of the boiler, so that the water surrounded it in contact. This still, however, was expensive, and occupied much room.

Such was the advances already made in the art of obtaining fresh from salt-water, when Mr. Isaacs, the petitioner, suggested his discovery. As the merit of this could be ascertained by experiment only, the Secretary of State asked the favor of Mr. Rittenhouse, President of the American Philosophical Society, of Dr. Wistar, professor of chemistry in the college at Philadelphia, and Dr. Hutchinson, professor of chemistry in the University of Pennsylvania, to be present at the experiments. Mr. Isaacs fixed the pot, a small caboose, with a tin cap and straight tube of tin passing obliquely through a cask of cold water; he made use of a mixture, the composition of which he did not explain, and from 24 pints of sea-water, taken up about three miles out of the Capes of Delaware, at flood-tide, he distilled 22 pints of fresh water in four hours with 20 lbs. of seasoned pine, which was a little wetted by having lain in the rain.

In a second experiment of the 21st of March, performed in a furnace, and five-gallon still at the college, from 32 pints of sea-water he drew 31 pints of fresh water in 7 hours and 24 minutes, with 51 lbs. of hickory, which had been cut about six months. In order to decide whether Mr. Isaacs' mixture contributed in any and what degree to the success of the operation, it was thought proper to repeat his experiment under the same circumstances exactly, except the omission of the mixture. Accordingly, on the next day, the same quantity of sea-water was put into the same still, the same furnace was used, and fuel from the same parcel; it yielded, as his had done, 31 pints fresh water in 11 minutes more of time, and with 10 lbs. less of wood.

On the 24th of March, Mr. Isaacs performed a third experiment. For this, a common iron pot of three and a half gallons was fixed in brick work, and the fine from the hearth wound once around this pot spirally, and then passed off up a chimney.

The cap was of tin, and a straight tin tube of about two inches diameter passing obliquely through a barrel of water, served instead of a worm. From sixteen pints of sea-water he drew off fifteen pints of fresh water, in two hours fifty-five minutes, with 3 lbs. of dry hickory and 8 lbs. of seasoned pine. This experiment was also repeated the next day, with the same apparatus, and fuel from the same parcel; but without the mixture, sixteen pints of sea-water yielded in like manner fifteen pints of fresh in one minute more of time, and with ½ lb. less of wood. On the whole, it was evident that Mr. Isaacs' mixture produced no advantage either in the process or result of the distillation.

The distilled water in all these instances, was found on experiment to be as pure as the best pump water of the city; its taste, indeed, was not as agreeable, but it was not such as to produce any disgust. In fact, we drink, in common life, in many places, and under many circumstances, and almost always at sea, a worse tasted and probably a less wholesome water.

The obtaining fresh from salt-water was for ages considered as an important desideratum for the use of navigators. The process for doing this by simple distillation is so efficacious, the erecting an extempore still with such utensils as are found on board of every ship, is so practicable, as to authorize the assertion that this desideratum is satisfied to a very useful degree. But though this has been done for upwards of thirty years, though its reality has been established by the actual experience of several vessels which have had recourse to it, yet neither the fact nor the process is known to the mass of seamen, to whom it would be the most useful, and for whom it was principally wanted. The Secretary of State is therefore of opinion that since the subject has now been brought under observation, it should be made the occasion of disseminating its knowledge generally and effectually among the seafaring citizens of the United States. The following is one of the many methods which might be proposed for doing this: Let the clearance for every vessel sailing from the ports of the United States be printed on a paper, in the back whereof shall be a printed account of the essays which have been made for obtaining fresh from salt-water, mentioning shortly those which have been unsuccessful, and more fully those which have succeeded, describing the methods which have been found to answer for constructing extempore stills of such implements as are generally on board of every vessel, with a recommendation in all cases where they shall have occasion to resort to this expedient for obtaining water, to publish the result of their trial in some gazette on their return to the United States, or to communicate it for publication to the office of the Secretary of State, in order that others may, by their success, be encouraged to make similar trials, and be benefited by any improvements or new ideas which may occur to them in practice.

II. Opinion on the proposition for establishing a Woollen Manufactory in Virginia.

The House of Delegates of Virginia seemed disposed to adventure £2,500 for the encouragement of this undertaking, but the Senate did not concur. By their returning to the subject, however, at a subsequent session, and wishing more specific propositions, it is probable they might be induced to concur, if they saw a certain provision that their money would not be paid for nothing. Some unsuccessful experiments heretofore may have suggested this caution.

Suppose the propositions brought into some such shape as this: The undertaker is to contribute £1,000, the State £2,500, viz.: the undertaker having laid out his £1,000 in the necessary implements to be brought from Europe, and these being landed in Virginia as a security that he will proceed,

let the State pay for the first necessary purposes then to occur £1,000

Let it pay him a stipend of £100 a year for the first three years 300

Let it give him a bounty (suppose one-third) on every yard of woollen cloth equal to good plains, which he shall weave for five years, not exceeding £250 a year (20,000 yards) the four first years, and £200 the fifth 1,200

£2,500

To every workman whom he shall import, let them give, after he shall have worked in the manufactory five years, warrants for —— acres of land, and pay the expenses of survey, patents, &c. [This last article is to meet the proposition of the undertaker. I do not like it, because it tends to draw off the manufacturer from his trade. I should better like a premium to him on his continuance in it; as, for instance, that he should be free from State taxes as long as he should carry on his trade.]

The President's intervention seems necessary till the contracts shall be concluded. It is presumed he would not like to be embarrassed afterwards with the details of superintendence. Suppose, in his answer to the Governor of Virginia, he should say that the undertaker being in Europe, more specific propositions cannot be obtained from him in time to be laid before this assembly; that in order to secure to the State the benefits of the establishment, and yet guard them against an unproductive grant of money, he thinks some plan like the preceding one might be proposed to the undertaker.

That as it is not known whether he would accept it exactly in that form, it might disappoint the views of the State were they to prescribe that or any other form rigorously, consequently that a discretionary power must be given to a certain extent.

That he would willingly coöperate with their executive in effecting the contract, and certainly would not conclude it on any terms worse for the State than those before explained, and that the contracts being once concluded, his distance and other occupations would oblige him to leave the execution open to the Executive of the State.

III. The Report on Copper Coinage, communicated to the House of Representatives, April 15th, 1790.

April 14, 1790.

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred, by the House of Representatives, the letter of John H. Mitchell, reciting certain proposals for supplying the United States with copper coinage, has had the same under consideration, according to instructions, and begs leave to report thereon as follows:

The person who wishes to undertake the supply of a copper coinage, sets forth, that the superiority of his apparatus and process for coining, enables him to furnish a coinage better and cheaper than can be done by any country or person whatever; that his dies are engraved by the first artist in that line in Europe; that his apparatus for striking the edge at the same blow with the faces, is new, and singularly ingenious; that he coins by a press on a new principle, and worked by a fire-engine, more regularly than can be done by hand; that he will deliver any quantity of coin, of any size and device, of pure, unalloyed copper, wrapped in paper and packed in casks, ready for shipping, for fourteen pence sterling the pound.

The Secretary of State has before been apprized, from other sources of information, of the great improvements made by this undertaker, in sundry arts; he is acquainted with the artist who invented the method of striking the edge, and both faces of the coin at one blow; he has seen his process and coins, and sent to the former Congress some specimens of them, with certain offers from him, before he entered into the service of the present undertaker, (which specimens he takes the liberty of now submitting to the inspection of the House, as proofs of the superiority of this method of coinage, in gold and silver as well as copper.)

He is, therefore, of opinion, that the undertaker, aided by that artist, and by his own excellent machines, is truly in a condition to furnish coin in a state of higher perfection than has ever yet been issued by any nation; that perfection in the engraving is among the greatest safeguards against counterfeits, because engravers of the first class are few, and elevated by their rank in their art, far above the base and dangerous business of counterfeiting. That the perfection of coins will indeed disappear, after they are for some time worn among other pieces, and especially where the figures are rather faintly relieved, as on those of this artist; yet, their high finishing, while new, is not the less a guard against counterfeits, because these, if carried to any extent, may be ushered into circulation new, also, and consequently, may be compared with genuine coins in the same state; that, therefore, whenever the United States shall be disposed to have a coin of their own, it will be desirable to aim at this kind of perfection. That this cannot be better effected, than by availing themselves, if possible, of the services of the undertaker, and of this artist, whose excellent methods and machines are said to have abridged, as well as perfected, the operations of coinage. These operations, however, and their expense, being new, and unknown here, he is unable to say whether the price proposed be reasonable or not. He is also uncertain whether, instead of the larger copper coin, the Legislature might not prefer a lighter one of billon, or mixed metal, as is practised, with convenience, by several other nations—a specimen of which kind of coinage is submitted to their inspection.

But the propositions under consideration suppose that the work is to be carried on in a foreign country, and that the implements are to remain the property of the undertaker; which conditions, in his opinion, render them inadmissible, for these reasons:

Coinage is peculiarly an attribute of sovereignty. To transfer its exercise into another country, is to submit it to another sovereign.

Its transportation across the ocean, besides the ordinary dangers of the sea, would expose it to acts of piracy, by the crews to whom it would be confided, as well as by others apprized of its passage.

In time of war, it would offer to the enterprises of an enemy, what have been emphatically called the sinews of war.

If the war were with the nation within whose territory the coinage is, the first act of war, or reprisal, might be to arrest this operation, with the implements and materials coined and uncoined, to be used at their discretion.

The reputation and principles of the present undertaker are safeguards against the abuses of a coinage, carried on in a foreign country, where no checks could be provided by the proper sovereign, no regulations established, no police, no guard exercised; in short, none of the numerous cautions hitherto thought essential at every mint; but in hands less entitled to confidence, these will become dangers. We may be secured, indeed, by proper experiments as to the purity of the coin delivered us according to contract, but we cannot be secured against that which, though less pure, shall be struck in the genuine die, and protected against the vigilance of Government, till it shall have entered into circulation.

We lose the opportunity of calling in and re-coining the clipped money in circulation, or we double our risk by a double transportation.

We lose, in like manner, the resource of coining up our household plate in the instant of great distress.

We lose the means of forming artists to continue the works, when the common accidents of mortality shall have deprived us of those who began them.

In fine, the carrying on a coinage in a foreign country, as far as the Secretary knows, is without example; and general example is weighty authority.

He is, therefore, of opinion, on the whole, that a mint, whenever established, should be established at home; that the superiority, the merit, and means of the undertaker, will suggest him as the proper person to be engaged in the establishment and conduct of a mint, on a scale which, relinquishing nothing in the perfection of the coin, shall be duly proportioned to our purposes.

And, in the meanwhile, he is of opinion the present proposals should be declined.

IV.—Opinion on the question whether the Senate has the right to negative the grade of persons appointed by the Executive to fill Foreign Missions.

New York, April 24, 1790.

The constitution having declared that the President shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, the President desired my opinion whether the Senate has a right to negative the grade he may think it expedient to use in a foreign mission as well as the person to be appointed.

I think the Senate has no right to negative the grade.

The constitution has divided the powers of government into three branches, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, lodging each with a distinct magistracy. The Legislative it has given completely to the Senate and House of Representatives. It has declared that the Executive powers shall be vested in the President, submitting special articles of it to a negative by the Senate, and it has vested the Judiciary power in the courts of justice, with certain exceptions also in favor of the Senate.

The transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive altogether. It belongs, then, to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specially submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly.

The constitution itself indeed has taken care to circumscribe this one within very strict limits; for it gives the nomination of the foreign agents to the President, the appointments to him and the Senate jointly, and the commissioning to the President.

This analysis calls our attention the strict import of each term. To nominate must be to propose. Appointment seems that act of the will which constitutes or makes the agent, and the commission is the public evidence of it. But there are still other acts previous to these not specially enumerated in the constitution, to wit: 1st. The destination of a mission to the particular country where the public service calls for it, and second the character or grade to be employed in it. The natural order of all these is first, destination; second, grade; third, nomination; fourth, appointment; fifth, commission. If appointment does not comprehend the neighboring acts of nomination or commission, (and the constitution says it shall not, by giving them exclusively to the President,) still less can it pretend to comprehend those previous and more remote, of destination and grade.

The constitution, analyzing the three last, shows they do not comprehend the two first. The fourth is the only one it submits to the Senate, shaping it into a right to say that "A or B is unfit to be appointed." Now, this cannot comprehend a right to say that "A or B is indeed fit to be appointed," but the grade fixed on is not the fit one to employ, or, "our connections with the country of his destination are not such as to call for any mission."

The Senate is not supposed by the constitution to be acquainted with the concerns of the Executive department. It was not intended that these should be communicated to them, nor can they therefore be qualified to judge of the necessity which calls for a mission to any particular place, or of the particular grade, more or less marked, which special and secret circumstances may call for. All this is left to the President. They are only to see that no unfit person be employed.

It may be objected that the Senate may by continual negatives on the person, do what amounts to a negative on the grade, and so, indirectly, defeat this right of the President. But this would be a breach of trust; an abuse of power confided to the Senate, of which that body cannot be supposed capable. So the President has a power to convoke the Legislature, and the Senate might defeat that power by refusing to come. This equally amounts to a negative on the power of convoking. Yet nobody will say they possess such a negative, or would be capable of usurping it by such oblique means. If the constitution had meant to give the Senate a negative on the grade or destination, as well as the person, it would have said so in direct terms, and not left it to be effected by a sidewind. It could never mean to give them the use of one power through the abuse of another.

V.—Opinion upon the validity of a grant made by the State of Georgia to certain companies of individuals, of a tract of country whereof the Indian right had never been extinguished, with power to such individuals to extinguish the Indian right.

May 3d, 1790.

The State of Georgia, having granted to certain individuals a tract of country, within their chartered limits, whereof the Indian right has never yet been acquired; with a proviso in the grants, which implies that those individuals may take measures for extinguishing the Indian rights under the authority of that Government, it becomes a question how far this grant is good?

A society, taking possession of a vacant country, and declaring they mean to occupy it, does thereby appropriate to themselves as prime occupants what was before common. A practice introduced since the discovery of America, authorizes them to go further, and to fix the limits which they assume to themselves; and it seems, for the common good, to admit this right to a moderate and reasonable extent.

If the country, instead of being altogether vacant, is thinly occupied by another nation, the right of the native forms an exception to that of the new comers; that is to say, these will only have a right against all other nations except the natives. Consequently, they have the exclusive privilege of acquiring the native right by purchase or other just means. This is called the right of preëmption, and is become a principle of the law of nations, fundamental with respect to America. There are but two means of acquiring the native title. First, war; for even war may, sometimes, give a just title. Second, contracts or treaty.

The States of America before their present union possessed completely, each within its own limits, the exclusive right to use these two means of acquiring the native title, and, by their act of union, they have as completely ceded both to the general government. Art. 2d, Section 1st. "The President shall have power, by and with the advice of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." Art. 1st, Section 8th, "The Congress shall have power to declare war, to raise and support armies." Section 10th, "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

These paragraphs of the constitution, declaring that the general government shall have, and that the particular ones shall not have, the right of war and treaty, are so explicit that no commentary can explain them further, nor can any explain them away. Consequently, Georgia, possessing the exclusive right to acquire the native title, but having relinquished the means of doing it to the general government, can only have put her grantee into her own condition. She could convey to them the exclusive right to acquire; but she could not convey what she had not herself, that is, the means of acquiring.

For these they must come to the general government, in whose hands they have been wisely deposited for the purposes both of peace and justice.

What is to be done? The right of the general government is, in my opinion, to be maintained. The case is sound, and the means of doing it as practicable as can ever occur. But respect and friendship should, I think, mark the conduct of the general towards the particular government, and explanations should be asked and time and color given them to tread back their steps before coercion is held up to their view. I am told there is already a strong party in Georgia opposed to the act of their government.

I should think it better then that the first measures, while firm, be yet so temperate as to secure their alliance and aid to the general government.

Might not the eclat of a proclamation revolt their pride and passion, and throw them hastily into the opposite scale? It will be proper indeed to require from the government of Georgia, in the first moment, that while the general government shall be expecting and considering her explanations, things shall remain in statu quo, and not a move be made towards carrying what they have begun into execution.

Perhaps it might not be superfluous to send some person to the Indians interested, to explain to them the views of government and to watch with their aid the territory in question.

VI.—Opinion in favor of the resolutions of May 21st, 1790 directing that, in all cases where payment had not been already made, the debts due to the soldiers of Virginia and North Carolina, should be paid to the original claimants or their attorneys, and not to their assignees.

June 3d, 1790.

The accounts of the soldiers of Virginia and North Carolina, having been examined by the proper officer of government, the balances due to each individual ascertained, and a list of these balances made out, this list became known to certain persons before the soldiers themselves had information of it, and those persons, by unfair means, as is said, and for very inadequate considerations, obtained assignments from many of the soldiers of whatever sum should be due to them from the public, without specifying the amount.

The legislature, to defeat this fraud, passed resolutions on the 21st of May, 1796, directing that where payment had not been made to the original claimant in person or his representatives, it shall be made to him or them personally, or to their attorney, producing a power for that purpose, attested by two justices of the county where he resides, and specifying the certain sum he is to receive.

It has been objected to these resolutions that they annul transfers of property which were good by the laws under which they were made; that they take from the assignees their lawful property; are contrary to the principles of the constitution, which condemn retrospective laws; and are, therefore, not worthy of the President's approbation.

I agree in an almost unlimited condemnation of retrospective laws. The few instances of wrong which they redress are so overweighed by the insecurity they draw over all property and even over life itself, and by the atrocious violations of both to which they lead that it is better to live under the evil than the remedy.

The only question I shall make is, whether these resolutions annul acts which were valid when they were done?

This question respects the laws of Virginia and North Carolina only. On the latter I am not qualified to decide, and therefore beg leave to confine myself to the former.

By the common law of England (adopted in Virginia) the conveyance of a right to a debt or other thing whereof the party is not in possession, is not only void, but severely punishable under the names of Maintenance and Champerty. The Law-merchants, however, which is permitted to have course between merchants, allows the assignment of a bill of exchange for the convenience of commerce. This, therefore, forms one exception to the general rule, that a mere right or thing in action is not assignable. A second exception has been formed by an English statute (copied into the laws of Virginia) permitting promissory notes to be assigned. The laws of Virginia have gone yet further than the statute, and have allowed, as a third exception, that a bond should be assigned, which cannot be done even at this day in England. So that, in Virginia, when a debt has been settled between the parties and put into the form of a bill of exchange, promissory note or bond, the law admits it to be transferred by assignment. In all other cases the assignment of a debt is void.

The debts from the United States to the soldiers of Virginia, not having been put into either of these forms, the assignments of them were void in law.

A creditor may give an order on his debtor in favor of another, but if the debtor does not accept it, he must be sued in the creditor's name; which shows that the order does not transfer the property of the debts. The creditor may appoint another to be his attorney to receive and recover his debt, and he may covenant that when received the attorney may apply it to his own use. But he must sue as attorney to the original proprietor, and not in his own right.

This proves that a power of attorney, with such a covenant, does not transfer the property of the debt. A further proof in both cases is, that the original creditor may at any time before payment or acceptance revoke either his order or his power of attorney.

In that event the person in whose favor they were given has recourse to a court of equity. When there, the judge examines whether he has done equity. If he finds his transaction has been a fair one, he gives him aid. If he finds it has been otherwise, not permitting his court to be made a handmaid to fraud, he leaves him without remedy in equity as he was in law. The assignments in the present case, therefore, if unfairly obtained, as seems to be admitted, are void in equity as they are in law. And they derive their nullity from the laws under which they were made, not from the new resolutions of Congress. These are not retrospective. They only direct their treasurer not to give validity to an assignment which had it not before, by payments to the assignee until he in whom the legal property still is, shall order it in such a form as to show he is apprized of the sum he is to part with, and its readiness to be paid into his or any other hands, and that he chooses, notwithstanding, to acquiesce under the fraud which has been practised on him. In that case he has only to execute before two justices a power of attorney to the same person, expressing the specific sum of his demand, and it is to be complied with. Actual payment, in this case, is an important act. If made to the assignee, it would put the burthen of proof and process on the original owner. If made to that owner, it puts it on the assignee, who must then come forward and show that his transaction has been that of an honest man.

Government seems to be doing in this what every individual, I think, would feel himself bound to do in the case of his own debt. For, being free in the law, to pay to the one or the other, he would certainly give the advantage to the party who has suffered wrong rather than to him who has committed it.

It is not honorable to take a mere legal advantage, when it happens to be contrary to justice.

But it is honorable to embrace a salutary principle of law when a relinquishment of it is solicited only to support a fraud.

I think the resolutions, therefore, merit approbation. I have before professed my incompetence to say what are the laws of North Carolina on this subject. They, like Virginia, adopted the English laws in the gross. These laws forbid in general the buying and selling of debts, and their policy in this is so wise that I presume they had not changed it till the contrary be shown.

VII.—Plan for establishing uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the United States. Communicated to the House of Representatives, July 13, 1790.

New York, July 4, 1790.

Sir:—In obedience to the order of the House of Representatives of January 15th, I have now the honor to enclose you a report on the subject of measures, weights, and coins. The length of time which intervened between the date of the order and my arrival in this city, prevented my receiving it till the 15th of April; and an illness which followed soon after added, unavoidably, some weeks to the delay; so that it was not till about the 20th May that I was able to finish the report. A desire to lessen the number of its imperfections induced me still to withhold it awhile, till, on the 15th of June, came to my hands, from Paris, a printed copy of a proposition made by the Bishop of Autun, to the National Assembly of France, on the subject of weights and measures; and three days afterwards I received, through the channel of the public papers, the speech of Sir John Riggs Miller, of April 13th, in the British House of Commons, on the same subject. In the report which I had prepared, and was then about to give in, I had proposed the latitude of 38°, as that which should fix our standard, because it was the medium latitude of the United States; but the proposition before the National Assembly of France, to take that of 45° as being a middle term between the equator and both poles, and a term which consequently might unite the nations of both hemispheres, appeared to me so well chosen, and so just, that I did not hesitate a moment to prefer it to that of 38°. It became necessary, of course, to conform all my calculations to that standard—an operation which has been retarded by my other occupations.

These circumstances will, I hope, apologize for the delay which has attended the execution of the order of the House; and, perhaps, a disposition on their part to have due regard for the proceedings of other nations, engaged on the same subject, may induce them still to defer deciding ultimately on it till their next session. Should this be the case, and should any new matter occur in the meantime, I shall think it my duty to communicate it to the House, as supplemental to the present report.

I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most profound respect,

Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant.

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred, by the House of Representatives, to prepare and report a proper plan or plans for establishing uniformity in the currency, weights, and measures of the United States, in obedience thereto, makes the following report:—

To obtain uniformity in measures, weights, and coins, it is necessary to find some measure of invariable length, with which, as a standard, they may be compared.

There exists not in nature, as far as has been hitherto observed, a single subject or species of subject, accessible to man, which presents one constant and uniform dimension.

The globe of the earth itself, indeed, might be considered as invariable in all its dimensions, and that its circumference would furnish an invariable measure; but no one of its circles, great or small, is accessible to admeasurement through all its parts, and the various trials to measure definite portions of them, have been of such various result as to show there is no dependence on that operation for certainty.

Matter, then, by its mere extension, furnishing nothing invariable, its motion is the only remaining resource.

The motion of the earth round its axis, though not absolutely uniform and invariable, may be considered as such for every human purpose. It is measured obviously, but unequally, by the departure of a given meridian from the sun, and its return to it, constituting a solar day. Throwing together the inequalities of solar days, a mean interval, or day, has been found, and divided, by very general consent, into 86,400 equal parts.

A pendulum, vibrating freely, in small and equal arcs, may be so adjusted in its length, as, by its vibrations, to make this division of the earth's motion into 86,400 equal parts, called seconds of mean time.

Such a pendulum, then, becomes itself a measure of determinate length, to which all others may be referred to as to a standard.

But even a pendulum is not without its uncertainties.

1. The difficulty of ascertaining, in practice, its centre of oscillation, as depending on the form of the bob, and its distance from the point of suspension; the effect of the weight of the suspending wire towards displacing the centre of oscillation; that centre being seated within the body of the bob, and therefore inaccessible to the measure, are sources of considerable uncertainty.

2. Both theory and experience prove that, to preserve its isochronism, it must be shorter towards the equator, and longer towards the poles.

3. The height of the situation above the common level, as being an increment to the radius of the earth, diminishes the length of the pendulum.

4. The pendulum being made of metal, as is best, it varies its length with the variations in the temperature of the atmosphere.

5. To continue small and equal vibrations, through a sufficient length of time, and to count these vibrations, machinery and a power are necessary, which may exert a small but constant effort to renew the waste of motion; and the difficulty is so to apply these, as that they shall neither retard or accelerate the vibrations.

1. In order to avoid the uncertainties which respect the centre of oscillation, it has been proposed by Mr. Leslie, an ingenious artist of Philadelphia, to substitute, for the pendulum, a uniform cylindrical rod, without a bob.

Could the diameter of such a rod be infinitely small, the centre of oscillation would be exactly at two-thirds of the whole length, measured from the point of suspension. Giving it a diameter which shall render it sufficiently inflexible, the centre will be displaced, indeed; but, in a second rod not the (1) six hundred thousandth part of its length, and not the hundredth part as much as in a second pendulum with a spherical bob of proper diameter. This displacement is so infinitely minute, then, that we may consider the centre of oscillation, for all practical purposes, as residing at two-thirds of the length from the centre of suspension. The distance between these two centres might be easily and accurately ascertained in practice. But the whole rod is better for a standard than any portion of it, because sensibly defined at both its extremities.

2. The uncertainty arising from the difference of length requisite for the second pendulum, or the second rod, in different latitudes, may be avoided by fixing on some one latitude, to which our standard shall refer. That of 38°, as being the middle latitude of the United States, might seem the most convenient, were we to consider ourselves alone; but connected with other nations by commerce and science, it is better to fix on that parallel which bids fairest to be adopted by them also. The 45th, as being the middle term between the equator and pole, has been heretofore proposed in Europe, and the proposition has been lately renewed there under circumstances which may very possibly give it some effect. This parallel is distinguished with us also as forming our principal northern boundary. Let the completion of the 45th degree, then, give the standard for our union, with the hope that it may become a line of union with the rest of the world.

The difference between the second rod for 45° of latitude, and that for 31°, our other extreme, is to be examined.

The second pendulum for 45° of latitude, according to Sir Isaac Newton's computation, must be of (2) 39.14912 inches English measure; and a rod, to vibrate in the same time, must be of the same length between the centres of suspension and oscillation; and, consequently, its whole length 58.7 (or, more exactly, 58.72368) inches. This is longer than the rod which shall vibrate seconds in the 31° of latitude, by about ¹⁄₆₇₉ part of its whole length; a difference so minute, that it might be neglected, as insensible, for the common purposes of life, but, in cases requiring perfect exactness, the second rod, found by trial of its vibrations in any part of the United States, may be corrected by computation for the (3) latitude of the place, and so brought exactly to the standard of 45°.

3. By making the experiment in the level of the ocean, the difference will be avoided, which a higher position might occasion.

4. The expansion and contraction of the rod with the change of temperature, is the fourth source of uncertainty before mentioned. According to the high authority so often quoted, an iron rod, of given length, may vary, between summer and winter, in temperate latitudes, and in the common exposure of house clocks, from ¹⁄₁₇₂₈ to ¹⁄₂₅₉₂ of its whole length, which, in a rod of 58.7 inches, will be from about two to three hundredths of an inch. This may be avoided by adjusting and preserving the standard in a cellar, or other place, the temperature of which never varies. Iron is named for this purpose, because the least expansible of the metals.

5. The practical difficulty resulting from the effect of the machinery and moving power is very inconsiderable in the present state of the arts; and, in their progress towards perfection, will become less and less. To estimate and obviate this, will be the artist's province. It is as nothing when compared with the sources of inaccuracy hitherto attending measures.

Before quitting the subject of the inconveniences, some of which attend the pendulum alone, others both the pendulum and rod, it must be added that the rod would have an accidental but very precious advantage over the pendulum in this country, in the event of our fixing the foot at the nearest aliquot part of either; for the difference between the common foot, and those so to be deduced, would be three times greater in the case of the pendulum than in that of the rod.

Let the standard of measure, then, be a uniform cylindrical rod of iron, of such length as, in latitude 45°, in the level of the ocean, and in a cellar, or other place, the temperature of which does not vary through the year, shall perform its vibrations in small and equal arcs, in one second of mean time.

A standard of invariable length being thus obtained, we may proceed to identify, by that, the measures, weights and coins of the United States; but here a doubt presents itself as to the extent of the reformation meditated by the House of Representatives. The experiment made by Congress in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-six, by declaring that there should be one money of account and payment through the United States, and that its parts and multiples should be in a decimal ratio,[23] has obtained such general approbation, both at home and abroad, that nothing seems wanting but the actual coinage, to banish the discordant pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings of the different States, and to establish in their stead the new denominations. Is it in contemplation with the House of Representatives to extend a like improvement to our measures and weights, and to arrange them also in a decimal ratio? The facility which this would introduce into the vulgar arithmetic would, unquestionably, be soon and sensibly felt by the whole mass of the people, who would thereby be enabled to compute for themselves whatever they should have occasion to buy, to sell, or to measure, which the present complicated and difficult ratios place beyond their computation for the most part. Or, is it the opinion of the Representatives that the difficulty of changing the established habits of a whole nation opposes an insuperable bar to this improvement? Under this uncertainty, the Secretary of State thinks it his duty to submit alternative plans, that the House may, at their will, adopt either the one or the other, exclusively, or the one for the present and the other for a future time, when the public mind may be supposed to have become familiarized to it.

I. And first, on the supposition that the present measures and weights are to be retained but to be rendered uniform and invariable, by bringing them to the same invariable standard.

The first settlers of these States, having come chiefly from England, brought with them the measures and weights of that country. These alone are generally established among us, either by law or usage; and these, therefore, are alone to be retained and fixed. We must resort to that country for information of what they are, or ought to be.

This rests, principally, on the evidence of certain standard measures and weights, which have been preserved, of long time, in different deposits. But differences among these having been known to exist, the House of Commons, in the years 1757 and 1758, appointed committees to inquire into the original standards of their weights and measures. These committees, assisted by able mathematicians and artists, examined and compared with each other the several standard measures and weights, and made reports on them in the years 1758 and 1759. The circumstances under which these reports were made entitle them to be considered, as far as they go, as the best written testimony existing of the standard measures and weights of England; and as such, they will be relied on in the progress of this report.

MEASURES OF LENGTH.

The measures of length in use among us are:

The league of 3 miles,

The mile of 8 furlongs,

The furlong of 40 poles or perches,

The pole or perch of 5½ yards,

The fathom of 2 yards,

The ell of a yard and quarter,

The yard of 3 feet,

The foot of 12 inches, and

The inch of 10 lines.

On this branch of their subject, the committee of 1757-1758, says that the standard measures of length at the receipt of the exchequer, are a yard, supposed to be of the time of Henry VII., and a yard and ell supposed to have been made about the year 1601; that they are brass rods, very coarsely made, their divisions not exact, and the rods bent; and that in the year 1742, some members of the Royal Society had been at great pains in taking an exact measure of these standards, by very curious instruments, prepared by the ingenious Mr. Graham; that the Royal Society had had a brass rod made pursuant to their experiments, which was made so accurately, and by persons so skilful and exact, that it was thought not easy to obtain a more exact one; and the committee, in fact, found it to agree with the standards at the exchequer, as near as it was possible. They furnish no means, to persons at a distance, of knowing what this standard is. This, however, is supplied by the evidence of the second pendulum, which, according to the authority before quoted, is, at London, 39.1682 English inches, and, consequently, the second rod there is of 58.7523 of the same inches. When we shall have found, then, by actual trial, the second rod for 45° by adding the difference of their computed length, to wit: ²⁸⁷⁄₁₀₀₀₀ of an inch, or rather ³⁄₁₀ of a line (which in practice will endanger less error than an attempt at so minute a fraction as the ten thousandth parts of an inch) we shall have the second rod of London, or a true measure of 58¾ English inches. Or, to shorten the operation, without varying the result,

Let the standard rod of 45° be divided into 587⅕ equal parts, and let each of these parts be declared a line.

10 lines an inch,

12 inches a foot,

3 feet a yard,

3 feet 9 inches an ell,

6 feet a fathom,

5½ yards a perch or pole

40 poles or perches a furlong,

8 furlongs a mile,

3 miles a league.

SUPERFICIAL MEASURES

Our measures of surface are, the acre of 4 roods and the rood of 40 square poles; so established by a statute of 33 Edw. 1. Let them remain the same.

MEASURES OF CAPACITY.

The measures of capacity in use among us are of the following names and proportions:

The gill, four of which make a pint.

Two pints make a quart.

Two quarts a pottle.

Two pottles a gallon.

Two gallons a peck, dry measure.

Eight gallons make a measure called a firkin, in liquid substances, and a bushel, dry.

Two firkins, or bushels, make a measure called a rundlet or kilderkin, liquid, and a strike, dry.

Two kilderkins, or strikes, make a measure called a barrel, liquid, and a coomb, dry; this last term being ancient and little used.

Two barrels, or coombs, make a measure called a hogshead, liquid, or a quarter, dry; each being the quarter of a ton.

A hogshead and a third make a tierce, or third of a ton.

Two hogsheads make a pipe, butt, or puncheon; and

Two pipes make a ton.

But no one of these measures is of a determinate capacity. The report of the committee of 1757-8, shows that the gallon is of very various content; and that being the unit, all the others must vary with it.

The gallon and bushel contain—

224 and 1792 cubic inches, according to the standard wine gallon preserved at Guildhall.

231 and 1848, according to the statute of 5th of Anne.

264.8 and 2118.4, according to the ancient Rumford quart, of 1228, examined by the committee.

265.5 and 2124, according to three standard bushels preserved in the Exchequer, to wit: one of Henry VII., without a rim; one dated 1091, supposed for 1591, or 1601, and one dated 1601.

266.25 and 2130, according to the ancient Rumford gallon of 1228, examined by the committee.

268.75 and 2150, according to the Winchester bushel, as declared by statute 13, 14, William III., which has been the model for some of the grain States.

271, less 2 spoonfuls, and 2168, less 16 spoonfuls, according to a standard gallon of Henry VII., and another dated 1601, marked E. E., both in the Exchequer.

271 and 2168, according to a standard gallon in the Exchequer, dated 1601, marked E., and called the corn gallon.

272 and 2176, according to the three standard corn gallons last mentioned, as measured in 1688, by an artist for the Commissioners of the Excise, generally used in the seaport towns, and by mercantile people, and thence introduced into some of the grain States.

277.18 and 2217.44, as established for the measure of coal by the statute 12 Anne.

278 and 2224, according to the standard bushel of Henry VII., with a copper rim, in the Exchequer.

278.4 and 2227.2 according to two standard pints of 1601 and 1602, in the Exchequer.

280 and 2240, according to the standard quart of 1601, in the Exchequer.

282 and 2256, according to the standard gallon for beer and ale in the Treasury.

There are, moreover, varieties on these varieties, from the barrel to the ton, inclusive; for, if the barrel be of herrings, it must contain 28 gallons by the statute 13 Eliz. c. 11. If of wine, it must contain 31½ gallons by the statute 2 Henry VI. c. 11, and 1 Rich. III. c. 15. If of beer or ale, it must contain 34 gallons by the statute 1 William and Mary, c. 24, and the higher measures in proportion.

In those of the United States which have not adopted the statutes of William and Mary, and of Anne before cited, nor their substance, the wine gallon of 231 cubic inches rests on the authority of very long usage, before the 5th of Anne, the origin and foundation of which are unknown; the bushel is the Winchester bushel, by the 11 Henry VII. undefined; and the barrel of ale 32 gallons, and of beer 36 gallons, by the statute 23 Henry VIII c. 4.

The Secretary of State is not informed whether there have been any, and what, alterations of these measures by the laws of the particular States.

It is proposed to retain this series of measures, but to fix the gallon to one determinate capacity, as the unit of measure, both wet and dry; for convenience is in favor of abolishing the distinction between wet and dry measures.

The wine gallon, whether of 224 or 231 cubic inches, may be altogether disregarded, as concerning, principally, the mercantile and the wealthy, the least numerous part of the society, and the most capable of reducing one measure to another by calculation. This gallon is little used among the mass of farmers, whose chief habits and interests are in the size of the corn bushel.

Of the standard measures before stated, two are principally distinguished in authority and practice. The statute bushel of 2150 cubic inches, which gives a gallon of 268.75 cubic inches, and the standard gallon of 1601, called the corn gallon of 271 or 272 cubic inches, which has introduced the mercantile bushel of 2276 inches. The former of these is most used in some of the grain States, the latter in others. The middle term of 270 cubic inches may be taken as a mutual compromise of convenience, and as offering this general advantage: that the bushel being of 2160 cubic inches, is exactly a cubic foot and a quarter, and so facilitates the conversion of wet and dry measures into solid contents and tonnage, and simplifies the connection of measures and weights, as will be shown hereafter. It may be added, in favor of this, as a medium measure, that eight of the standard, or statute measures before enumerated, are below this term, and nine above it.

The measures to be made for use, being four sided, with rectangular sides and bottom.

The pint will be 3 inches square, and 3¾ inches deep;

The quart 3 inches square, and 7½ inches deep;

The pottle 3 inches square, and 15 inches deep, or 4½, 5, and 6 inches;

The gallon 6 inches square, and 7½ inches deep, or 5, 6, and 9 inches;

The peck 6, 9, and 10 inches;

The half bushel 12 inches square, and 7½ inches deep; and The bushel 12 inches square, and 15 inches deep, or 9, 15, and 16 inches.

Cylindrical measures have the advantage of superior strength, but square ones have the greater advantage of enabling every one who has a rule in his pocket, to verify their contents by measuring them. Moreover, till the circle can be squared, the cylinder cannot be cubed, nor its contents exactly expressed in figures.

Let the measures of capacity, then, for the United States be—

A gallon of 270 cubic inches;

The gallon to contain 2 pottles;

The pottle 2 quarts;

The quart 2 pints;

The pint 4 gills;

Two gallons to make a peck;

Eight gallons a bushel or firkin;

Two bushels, or firkin, a strike or kilderkin;

Two strikes, or kilderkins, a coomb or barrel;

Two coombs, or barrels, a quarter or hogshead;

A hogshead and a third one tierce;

Two hogsheads a pipe, butt, or puncheon; and

Two pipes a ton.

And let all measures of capacity of dry subjects be stricken with a straight strike.

WEIGHTS.

There are two series of weights in use among us; the one called avoirdupois, the other troy.

In the Avoirdupois series:

The pound is divided into 16 ounces;

The ounce into 16 drachms;

The drachm into 4 quarters.

In the Troy series:

The pound is divided into 12 ounces;

The ounce (according to the subdivision of the apothecaries) into 8 drachms;

The drachm into 3 scruples;

The scruple into 20 grains.

According to the subdivision for gold and silver, the ounce is divided into twenty pennyweights, and the pennyweight into twenty-four grains.

So that the pound troy contains 5760 grains, of which 7000 are requisite to make the pound avoirdupois; of course the weight of the pound troy is to that of the 7000, or as 144 to 175.

It is remarkable that this is exactly the proportion of the ancient liquid gallon of Guildhall of 224 cubic inches, to the corn gallon of 272; for 224 are to 272 as 144 to 175. (4.)

It is further remarkable still, that this is also the exact proportion between the specific weight of any measure of wheat, and of the same measure of water: for the statute bushel is of 64 pounds of wheat. Now as 144 to 175, so are 64 pounds to 77.7 pounds; but 77.7 pounds is known to be the weight of (5.) 2150.4 cubic inches of pure water, which is exactly the content of the Winchester bushel, as declared by the statute 13, 14, Will. 3. That statute determined the bushel to be a cylinder of 18½ inches diameter, and 8 inches depth. Such a cylinder, as nearly as it can be cubed, and expressed in figures, contains 2150.425 cubic inches; a result which reflects authority on the declaration of Parliament, and induces a favorable opinion of the care with which they investigated the contents of the ancient bushel, and also a belief that there might exist evidence of it at that day, unknown to the committees of 1758 and 1759.

We find, then, in a continued proportion 64 to 77.7 as 224 to 272, and as 144 to 175, that is to say, the specific weight of a measure of wheat, to that of the same measure of water, as the cubic contents of the wet gallon, to those of the dry; and as the weight of a pound troy to that of a pound avoirdupois.

This seems to have been so combined as to render it indifferent whether a thing were dealt out by weight or measure; for the dry gallon of wheat, and the liquid one of wine, were of the same weight; and the avoirdupois pound of wheat, and the troy pound of wine, were of the same measure. Water and the vinous liquors, which enter most into commerce, are so nearly of a weight, that the difference, in moderate quantities, would be neglected by both buyer and seller; some of the wines being a little heavier, and some a little lighter, than water.

Another remarkable correspondence is that between weights and measures. For 1000 ounces avoirdupois of pure water fill a cubic foot, with mathematical exactness.

What circumstances of the times, or purposes of barter or commerce, called for this combination of weights and measures, with the subjects to be exchanged or purchased, are not now to be ascertained. But a triple set of exact proportionals representing weights, measures, and the things to be weighed and measured, and a relation so integral between weights and solid measures, must have been the result of design and scientific calculation, and not a mere coincidence of hazard. It proves that the dry and wet measures, the heavy and light weights, must have been original parts of the system they compose—contrary to the opinion of the committee of 1757, 1758, who thought that the avoirdupois weight was not an ancient weight of the kingdom, nor ever even a legal weight, but during a single year of the reign of Henry VIII.; and, therefore, concluded, otherwise than will be here proposed, to suppress it altogether. Their opinion was founded chiefly on the silence of the laws as to this weight. But the harmony here developed in the system of weights and measures, of which the avoirdupois makes an essential member, corroborated by a general use, from very high antiquity, of that, or of a nearly similar weight under another (6.) name, seem stronger proofs that this is legal weight, than the mere silence of the written laws is of the contrary.

Be this as it may, it is in such general use with us, that, on the principle of popular convenience, its higher denominations, at least, must be preserved. It is by the avoirdupois pound and ounce that our citizens have been used to buy and sell. But the smaller subdivisions of drachms and quarters are not in use with them. On the other hand, they have been used to weigh their money and medicine with the pennyweights and grains troy weight, and are not in the habit of using the pounds and ounces of that series. It would be for their convenience, then, to suppress the pound and ounce troy, and the drachm and quarter avoirdupois; and to form into one series the avoirdupois pound and ounce, and the troy pennyweight and grain. The avoirdupois ounce contains 18 pennyweights 5½ grains troy weight. Divide it, then, into 18 pennyweights, and the pennyweight, as heretofore, into 24 grains, and the new pennyweight will contain between a third and a quarter of a grain more than the present troy pennyweight; or, more accurately, it will be to that as 875 to 864—a difference not to be noticed, either in money or medicine, below the denomination of an ounce.

But it will be necessary to refer these weights to a determinate mass of some substance, the specific gravity of which is invariable. Rain water is such a substance, and may be referred to everywhere, and through all time. It has been found by accurate experiments that a cubic foot of rain water weighs 1000 ounces avoirdupois, standard weights of the exchequer. It is true that among these standard weights the committee report small variations; but this experiment must decide in favor of those particular weights, between which, and an integral mass of water, so remarkable a coincidence has been found. To render this standard more exact, the water should be weighed always in the same temperature of air; as heat, by increasing its volume, lessens its specific gravity. The cellar of uniform temperature is best for this also.

Let it, then, be established that an ounce is of the weight of a cube of rain water, of one-tenth of a foot; or, rather, that it is the thousandth part of the weight of a cubic foot of rain water, weighed in the standard temperature; that the series of weights of the United States shall consist of pounds, ounces, pennyweights, and grains; whereof

24 grains shall be one pennyweight;

18 pennyweights one ounce;

16 ounces one pound.

COINS.

Congress, in 1786, established the money unit at 375.64 troy grains of pure silver. It is proposed to enlarge this by about the third of a grain in weight, or a mill in value; that is to say, to establish it at 376 (or, more exactly, 375.989343) instead of 375.64 grains; because it will be shown that this, as the unit of coin, will link in system with the units of length, surface, capacity, and weight, whenever it shall be thought proper to extend the decimal ratio through all these branches. It is to preserve the possibility of doing this, that this very minute alteration is proposed.

We have this proportion, then, 875 to 864, as 375.989343 grains troy to 371.2626277; the expression of the unit in the new grains.

Let it be declared, therefore, that the money unit, or dollar of the United States, shall contain 371.262 American grains of pure silver.

If nothing more, then, is proposed, than to render uniform and stable the system we already possess, this may be effected on the plan herein detailed; the sum of which is: 1st. That the present measures of length be retained, and fixed by an invariable standard. 2d. That the measures of surface remain as they are, and be invariable also as the measures of length to which they are to refer. 3d. That the unit of capacity, now so equivocal, be settled at a medium and convenient term, and defined by the same invariable measures of length. 4th. That the more known terms in the two kinds of weights be retained, and reduced to one series, and that they be referred to a definite mass of some substance, the specific gravity of which never changes. And 5th. That the quantity of pure silver in the money unit be expressed in parts of the weights so defined.

In the whole of this no change is proposed, except an insensible one in the troy grain and pennyweight, and the very minute one in the money unit.

II. But if it be thought that, either now, or at any future time, the citizens of the United States may be induced to undertake a thorough reformation of their whole system of measures, weights and coins, reducing every branch to the same decimal ratio already established in their coins, and thus bringing the calculation of the principal affairs of life within the arithmetic of every man who can multiply and divide plain numbers, greater changes will be necessary.

The unit of measure is still that which must give law through the whole system; and from whatever unit we set out, the coincidences between the old and new ratios will be rare. All that can be done, will be to choose such a unit as will produce the most of these. In this respect the second rod has been found, on trial, to be far preferable to the second pendulum.

MEASURES OF LENGTH.

Let the second rod, then, as before described, be the standard of measure; and let it be divided into five equal parts, each of which shall be called a foot; for, perhaps, it may be better generally to retain the name of the nearest present measure, where there is one tolerably near. It will be about one quarter of an inch shorter than the present foot.

Let the foot be divided into 10 inches;

The inch into 10 lines;

The line into 10 points;

Let 10 feet make a decad;

10 decads one rood;

10 roods a furlong;

10 furlongs a mile.

SUPERFICIAL MEASURES.

Superficial measures have been estimated, and so may continue to be, in squares of the measures of length, except in the case of lands, which have been estimated by squares, called roods and acres. Let the rood be equal to a square, every side of which is 100 feet. This will be 6.483 English feet less than the English (7.) rood every way, and 1311 square feet less in its whole contents; that is to say, about one-eighth; in which proportion, also, 4 roods will be less than the present acre.

MEASURES OF CAPACITY.

Let the unit of capacity be the cubic foot, to be called a bushel. It will contain 1620.05506862 cubic inches, English; be about one-fourth less than that before proposed to be adopted as a medium; one-tenth less than the bushel made from 8 of the Guildhall gallons; and one-fourteenth less than the bushel made from 8 Irish gallons of 217.6 cubic inches.

Let the bushel be divided into 10 pottles;

Each pottle into 10 demi-pints;

Each demi-pint into 10 metres, which will be of a cubic inch each.

Let 10 bushels be a quarter, and

10 quarters a last, or double ton.

The measures for use being four-sided, and the sides and bottoms rectangular, the bushel will be a foot cube.

The pottle 5 inches square and four inches deep;

The demi-pint 2 inches square, and 2½ inches deep;

The metre, an inch cube.

WEIGHTS.

Let the weight of a cubic inch of rain water, or the thousandth part of a cubic foot, be called an ounce; and let the ounce be divided into 10 double scruples:

The double scruple into 10 carats;

The carat into 10 minims or demi-grains;

The minim into 10 mites. Let 10 ounces make a pound;

10 pounds a stone;

16 stones a kental;

10 kentals a hogshead.

COINS.

Let the money unit, or dollar, contain eleventh-twelfths of an ounce of pure silver. This will be 376 troy grains, (or more exactly, 375.959343 troy grains,) which will be about a third of a grain, (or more exactly, .349343 of a grain,) more than the present unit. This, with the twelfth of alloy already established, will make the dollar or unit, of the weight of an ounce, or of a cubic inch of rain water, exactly. The series of mills, cents, dimes, dollars, and eagles, to remain as already established (8.)

The second rod, or the second pendulum, expressed in the measures of other countries, will give the proportion between their measures and those of the United States.

Measures, weights and coins, thus referred to standards unchangeable in their nature, (as is the length of a rod vibrating seconds, and the weight of a definite mass of rain water,) will themselves be unchangeable. These standards, too, are such as to be accessible to all persons, in all times and places. The measures and weights derived from them fall in so nearly with some of those now in use, as to facilitate their introduction; and being arranged in decimal ratio, they are within the calculation of every one who possesses the first elements of arithmetic, and of easy comparison, both for foreigners and citizens, with the measures, weights, and coins of other countries.

A gradual introduction would lessen the inconveniences which might attend too sudden a substitution, even of an easier for a more difficult system. After a given term, for instance, it might begin in the custom-houses, where the merchants would become familiarized to it. After a further term, it might be introduced into all legal proceedings, and merchants and traders in foreign commodities might be required to use it in their dealings with one another. After a still further term, all other descriptions of people might receive it into common use. Too long a postponement, on the other hand, would increase the difficulties of its reception with the increase of our population.

Appendix, containing illustrations and developments of some passages of the preceding report.

(1.) In the second pendulum with a spherical bob, call the distance between the centres of suspension and of the bob, 2x19.575, or 2d, and the radius of the bob = r; then 2d:r::r: rr 2d and ⅖ of this last proportional expresses the displacement of the centre of oscillation, to wit: 2rr 5x2d = rr 5d . Two inches have been proposed as a proper diameter for such a bob. In that case r will be = 1. inch, and rr 5d = 1 9787 inches.

In the cylindrical second rod, call the length of the rod, 3 x 19.575. or 3d, and its radius = r and rr 2x3d = rr 6d will express the displacement of the centre of oscillation. It is thought the rod will be sufficiently inflexible if it be ⅕ of an inch in diameter. Then r will be = .1 inch, and rr 6d = 1 11745 inches, which is but the 120th part of the displacement in the case of the pendulum with a spherical bob, and but the 689,710th part of the whole length of the rod. If the rod be even of half an inch diameter, the displacement will be but ¹⁄₁₈₇₉ of an inch, or ¹⁄₁₁₀₃₅₆ of the length of the rod.

(2.) Sir Isaac Newton computes the pendulum for 45° to be 36 pouces 8.428 lignes. Picard made the English foot 11 pouces 2.6 lignes, and Dr. Maskelyne 11 pouces 3.11 lignes. D'Alembert states it at 11 pouces 3 lignes, which has been used in these calculations as a middle term, and gives us 36 pouces 8.428 lignes = 39.1491 inches. This length for the pendulum of 45° had been adopted in this report before the Bishop of Autun's proposition was known here. He relies on Mairan's ratio for the length of the pendulum in the latitude of Paris, to wit: 504:257::72 pouces to a 4th proportional, which will be 36.71428 pouces=39.1619 inches, the length of the pendulum for latitude 48° 50'. The difference between this and the pendulum for 45° is .0113 of an inch; so that the pendulum for 45° would be estimated, according to Mairan, at 39.1619—.0113 = 39.1506 inches, almost precisely the same with Newton's computation herein adopted.

(3.) Sir Isaac Newton's computations for the different degrees of latitude, from 30° to 45°, are as follows:

Pieds. Lignes.

30° 3 7.948

35 3 8.099

40 3 8.261

41 3 8.294

42 3 8.327

43 3 8.361

44 3 8.394

45 3 8.428

(4.) Or, more exactly, 144:175::224:272.2.

(5.) Or, more exactly, 62.5:1728::77.7:2150.39.

(6.) The merchant's weight.

(7.) The Eng. rood contains 10,890 sq. feet = 104.355 feet sq.

(8.) The Measures, Weights, and Coins of the Decimal System, estimated in those of England, now used in the United States.

1. MEASURES OF LENGTH.

Feet. Equivalent in English measure.

The point, .001 .011 inch.

The line, .01 .117

The inch, .1 1.174, about ¹⁄₇ more than the Eng. inch.

The foot, 1. } 11.744736 } about ¹⁄₄₈ less than the English foot.

} .978728 feet,

The decad, 10. 9.787, about ¹⁄₄₈ less than the 10 feet rod of the carpenters.

The rood, 100. 97.872, about ¹⁄₁₆ less than the side of an English square rood.

The furlong, 1000. 978.728, about ⅓ more than the Eng. fur.

The mile, 10000. 9787.28, about 1 ⁶⁄₇ English mile, nearly the Scotch and Irish mile, and ½ the German mile.

2. SUPERFICIAL MEASURE.

Roods.

The hundredth, .01 95.69 square feet English.

The tenth, .1 957.9

The rood, 1. 9579.085

The double acre, 10. 2.199, or say 2.2 acres English.

The square furlong, 100. 22.

3. MEASURE OF CAPACITY.

Bushels. Cub. Inches

The metre, .001 1.62

The demi-pint, .01 16.2, about ¹⁄₂₄ less than the English half-pint.

The pottle, .1 162.005, about ⅙ more than the English pottle.

The bushel, 1. { 1620.05506862 { .937531868414884352 cub feet.

about ¼ less than the middle sized English bushel.

The quarter, 10. 9.375, about ⅕ less than the Eng. qr.

The last, 100. 93.753, about ¹⁄₇ more than the Eng. last.

4. WEIGHTS.

Pounds. Avoirdupois. Troy.

Mite, .00001 .041 grains, about ⅕ less than the English mite.

Minim, or demi-grain, .0001 .4101, about ⅕ less than half-grain troy.

Carat, .001 .4101, about ¹⁄₄₀ more than the carat troy.

Double scruple, .01 41.017, about ¹⁄₄₀ more than 2 scruples troy.

Ounce, .1 9375318684148 410.170192431

84352 oz. .85452 oz.

about ¹⁄₁₆ less than the ounce avoirdupois.

Pound, 1. 9.375 .712101 lb.,

.585957417759 lb.

about ¼ less than the pound troy.

Stone, 10. 93.753 oz. 7.121

5.8595 lb.

about ¼ less than the English stone of 8 lbs. avoirdupois.

Kental, 100. 937.531 oz. 71.21

58.5957 lb.

about ⁴⁄₁₀ less than the English kental of 100 lbs. avoirdupois.

Hogshead, 1000. 9375.318 oz. 712.101

585.9574 lb.

5. COINS.

Dollars. Troy grains.

The mill, .001

The cent, .01

The dime, .1

Dollar, 1. 375.98934306 pure silver. 34.18084937 alloy.

Eagle, 10. 410.17019243

Postscript.

January 10, 1791.

It is scarcely necessary to observe that the measures, weights, and coins, proposed in the preceding report, will be derived altogether from mechanical operations, viz.: A rod, vibrating seconds, divided into five equal parts, one of these subdivided, and multiplied decimally, for every measure of length, surface, and capacity, and these last filled with water, to determine the weights and coins. The arithmetical estimates in the report were intended only to give an idea of what the new measures, weights, and coins, would be nearly, when compared with the old. The length of the standard or second rod, therefore, was assumed from that of the pendulum; and as there has been small differences in the estimates of the pendulum by different persons, that of Sir Isaac Newton was taken, the highest authority the world has yet known. But, if even he has erred, the measures, weights, and coins proposed, will not be an atom the more or less. In cubing the new foot, which was estimated at .978728 of an English foot, or 11.744736 English inches, an arithmetical error of an unit happened in the fourth column of decimals, and was repeated in another line in the sixth column, so as to make the result one ten thousandth and one millionth of a foot too much. The thousandth part of this error (about one ten millionth of a foot) consequently fell on the metre of measure, the ounce weight, and the unit of money. In the last it made a difference of about the twenty-fifth part of a grain Troy, in weight, or the ninety-third of a cent in value. As it happened, this error was on the favorable side, so that the detection of it approximates our estimate of the new unit exactly that much nearer to the old, and reduces the difference between them to 34, instead of 38 hundredths of a grain Troy; that is to say, the money unit instead of 375.64 Troy grains of pure silver, as established heretofore, will now be 375.98934306 grains, as far as our knowledge of the length of the second pendulum enables us to judge; and the current of authorities since Sir Isaac Newton's time, gives reason to believe that his estimate is more probably above than below the truth, consequently future corrections of it will bring the estimate of the new unit still nearer to the old.

The numbers in which the arithmetical error before mentioned showed itself in the table, at the end of the report, have been rectified, and the table re-printed.

The head of superficial measures in the last part of the report, is thought to be not sufficiently developed. It is proposed that the rood of land, being 100 feet square, (and nearly a quarter of the present acre,) shall be the unit of land measure. This will naturally be divided into tenths and hundredths, the latter of which will be a square decad. Its multiples will also, of course, be tens, which may be called double acres, and hundreds, which will be equal to a square furlong each. The surveyor's chain should be composed of 100 links of one foot each.

VIII.—Opinion upon the question whether the President should veto the Bill, declaring that the seat of government shall be transferred to the Potomac, in the year 1790.

July 15, 1790.

A bill having passed both houses of Congress, and being now before the President, declaring that the seat of the federal government shall be transferred to the Potomac in the year 1790, that the session of Congress next ensuing the present shall be held in Philadelphia, to which place the offices shall be transferred before the 1st of December next, a writer in a public paper of July 13, has urged on the consideration of the President, that the constitution has given to the two houses of Congress the exclusive right to adjourn themselves; that the will of the President mixed with theirs in a decision of this kind, would be an inoperative ingredient, repugnant to the constitution, and that he ought not to permit them to part, in a single instance, with their constitutional rights; consequently, that he ought to negative the bill.

That is now to be considered.

Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men. When a certain description of men are to transact together a particular business, the times and places of their meeting and separating, depend on their own will; they make a part of the natural right of self-government. This, like all other natural rights, may be abridged or modified in its exercise by their own consent, or by the law of those who depute them, if they meet in the right of others; but as far as it is not abridged or modified, they retain it as a natural right, and may exercise them in what form they please, either exclusively by themselves, or in association with others, or by others altogether, as they shall agree.

Each house of Congress possesses this natural right of governing itself, and, consequently, of fixing its own times and places of meeting, so far as it has not been abridged by the law of those who employ them, that is to say, by the Constitution. This act manifestly considers them as possessing this right of course, and therefore has nowhere given it to them. In the several different passages where it touches this right, it treats it as an existing thing, not as one called into existence by them. To evince this, every passage of the constitution shall be quoted, where the right of adjournment is touched; and it will be seen that no one of them pretends to give that right; that, on the contrary, every one is evidently introduced either to enlarge the right where it would be too narrow, to restrain it where, in its natural and full exercise, it might be too large, and lead to inconvenience, to defend it from the latitude of its own phrases, where these were not meant to comprehend it, or to provide for its exercise by others, when they cannot exercise it themselves.

"A majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members." Art. 1. Sec. 5. A majority of every collection of men being naturally necessary to constitute its will, and it being frequently to happen that a majority is not assembled, it was necessary to enlarge the natural right by giving to "a smaller number than a majority" a right to compel the attendance of the absent members, and, in the meantime, to adjourn from day to day. This clause, then, does not pretend to give to a majority a right which it knew that majority would have of themselves, but to a number less than a majority, a right to which it knew that lesser number could not have of themselves.

"Neither house, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two houses shall be sitting." Ibid. Each house exercising separately its natural right to meet when and where it should think best, it might happen that the two houses would separate either in time or place, which would be inconvenient. It was necessary, therefore, to keep them together by restraining their natural right of deciding on separate times and places, and by requiring a concurrence of will.

But, as it might happen that obstinacy, or a difference of object, might prevent this concurrence, it goes on to take from them, in that instance, the right of adjournment altogether, and to transfer it to another, by declaring, Art. 2, Sec. 3, that "in case of disagreement between the two houses, with respect to the time of adjournment, the President may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper."

These clauses, then, do not import a gift, to the two houses, of a general right of adjournment, which it was known they would have without that gift, but to restrain or abrogate the right it was known they would have, in an instance where, exercised in its full extent, it might lead to inconvenience, and to give that right to another who would not naturally have had it. It also gives to the President a right, which he otherwise would not have had, "to convene both houses, or either of them, on extraordinary occasions." Thus substituting the will of another, where they are not in a situation to exercise their own.

"Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment), shall be presented to the President for his approbation, &c." Art. 1, Sec. 7. The latitude of the general words here used would have subjected the natural right of adjournment of the two houses to the will of the President, which was not intended. They therefore expressly "except questions of adjournment" out of their operation. They do not here give a right of adjournment, which it was known would exist without their gift, but they defend the existing right against the latitude of their own phrases, in a case where there was no good reason to abridge it. The exception admits they will have the right of adjournment, without pointing out the source from which they will derive it.

These are all the passages of the constitution (one only excepted, which shall be presently cited) where the right of adjournment is touched; and it is evident that none of these are introduced to give that right; but every one supposes it to be existing, and provides some specific modification for cases where either a defeat in the natural right, or a too full use of it, would occasion inconvenience.

The right of adjournment, then, is not given by the constitution, and consequently it may be modified by law without interfering with that instrument. It is a natural right, and, like all other natural rights, may be abridged or regulated in its exercise by law; and the concurrence of the third branch in any law regulating its exercise is so efficient an ingredient in that law, that the right cannot be otherwise exercised but after a repeal by a new law. The express terms of the constitution itself show that this right may be modified by law, when, in Art. 1, Sec. 4. (the only remaining passage on the subject not yet quoted) it says, "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be the first Monday in December, unless they shall, by law, appoint a different day." Then another day may be appointed by law; and the President's assent is an efficient ingredient in that law. Nay further, they cannot adjourn over the first Monday of December but by a law. This is another constitutional abridgment of their natural right of adjournment; and completing our review of all the clauses in the constitution which touch that right, authorizes us to say no part of that instrument gives it; and that the houses hold it, not from the constitution, but from nature.

A consequence of this is, that the houses may, by a joint resolution, remove themselves from place to place, because it is a part of their right of self-government; but that as the right of self-government does not comprehend the government of others, the two houses cannot, by a joint resolution of their majorities only, remove the executive and judiciary from place to place. These branches possessing also the rights of self-government from nature, cannot be controlled in the exercise of them but by a law, passed in the forms of the constitution. The clause of the bill in question, therefore, was necessary to be put into the form of a law, and to be submitted to the President, so far as it proposes to effect the removal of the Executive and Judiciary to Philadelphia. So far as respects the removal of the present houses of legislation thither, it was not necessary to be submitted to the President; but such a submission is not repugnant to the constitution. On the contrary, if he concurs, it will so far fix the next session of Congress at Philadelphia that it cannot be changed but by a regular law.

The sense of Congress itself is always respectable authority. It has been given very remarkably on the present subject. The address to the President in the paper of the 13th is a complete digest of all the arguments urged on the floor of the Representatives against the constitutionality of the bill now before the President; and they were overruled by a majority of that house, comprehending the delegation of all the States south of the Hudson, except South Carolina. At the last session of Congress, when the bill for remaining a certain term at New York, and then removing to Susquehanna or Germantown was objected to on the same ground, the objection was overruled by a majority comprehending the delegations of the northern half of the union with that of South Carolina. So that the sense of every State in the union has been expressed, by its delegation, against this objection South Carolina excepted, and excepting also Rhode Island, which has never yet had a delegation in place to vote on the question. In both these instances, the Senate concurred with the majority of the Representatives. The sense of the two houses is stronger authority in this case, as it is given against their own supposed privilege.

It would be as tedious, as it is unnecessary, to take up and discuss one by one, the objections proposed in the paper of July 13. Every one of them is founded on the supposition that the two houses hold their right of adjournment from the constitution. This error being corrected, the objections founded on it fall of themselves.

It would also be work of mere supererogation to show that, granting what this writer takes for granted (that the President's assent would be an inoperative ingredient, because excluded by the constitution, as he says), yet the particular views of the writer would be frustrated, for on every hypothesis of what the President may do, Congress must go to Philadelphia. 1. If he assents to the bill, that assent makes good law of the part relative to the Patomac; and the part for holding the next session at Philadelphia is good, either as an ordinance, or a vote of the two houses, containing a complete declaration of their will in a case where it is competent to the object; so that they must go to Philadelphia in that case. 2. If he dissents from the bill it annuls the part relative to the Patomac; but as to the clause for adjourning to Philadelphia, his dissent being as inefficient as his assent, it remains a good ordinance or vote, of the two houses for going thither, and consequently they must go in this case also. 3. If the President withholds his will out of the bill altogether, by a ten days' silence, then the part relative to the Potomac becomes a good law without his will, and that relative to Philadelphia is good also, either as a law, or an ordinance, or a vote of the two houses; and consequently in this case also they go to Philadelphia.