The 1791 Resolution establishing the Mint was “foully smuggled through” the Senate
JCH22
Posts: 214 ✭✭✭✭
(repost— original lost during edit for typos)
In an earlier post, I attached a copy of the March 3, 1791 Resolution establishing the Mint.
It seemed unusual for a Resolution, rather than a Bill to have been used. That led me to dig a little as to why. One source consulted was the papers of William Maclay. Maclay was Senator from Pennsylvania in the First Congress, and was a leading member of the “Anti-Administration” faction. His animosity for Hamilton is not disguised in his writings.
As can be seen from his Maclay’s journals, Hamilton’s shrewdness was the key to preventing the “Anti-Administration Faction” from stalling, or blocking, the establishment of the Mint.
March 1, 1791
….
Izard [Senator from North Carolina] came over, and made a long complaint against Hamilton. Here, said he, have we been waiting, nobody knows how long, and Hamilton has promised to send us a bill for the Mint. And now at last he sends us a resolution to employ workmen. Two things are clear from this: that Hamilton prepares all matters for his tools (this I knew long ago); the other is that he has kept back this exceptionable business till there would be no time to investigate it.
March 2, 1791
…... More business has been hurried through the Senate this day than has been done in a month of our former sessions at other periods. The Secretary {Hamilton] has bought the present House, and he wishes to have his money’s worth out of them. The resolution of the Mint was foully smuggled through. I hope somebody will take notice of it in the other House. It is evident what a system has been adopted by the Secretary [Hamilton]. We used to canvass every subject and dispute every inch of his systems, and this sometimes detached some of his party from him and defeated him. To prevent this, all has been put off until this late moment, and now not a word will be heard. The plea of want of time prevails, and every one that attempts to speak is silenced with the cry of question and a mere insurrection of the members in support of the demand. I am at no loss now to ascertain the reason why the Mint business has been delayed and finally came forward under the form of a resolution rather than a bill. Bills cannot be read out of order but by unanimous consent.
March 3, 1791
…..
In the evening by candle-light. When I saw the merry mood in which the Senate assembled, I was ready to laugh. When I considered the occasion, I was almost disposed to give way to a very different emotion. I did, however, neither the one nor the ‘other and, feeling myself of as little importance as I had ever done in my life, I took pen and paper and determined, if possible, to keep pace with the hurry of business as it passed, which I expected would now be very rapid, as I had no doubt that Hamilton’s clerks had put the last hand to everything:
1) Mr. Buckley announced that he brought a new resolve for the safe-keeping of prisoners, etc.
2) A bill for compensation to commissioners of loans for extra expenses.
3)A salary bill for the executive officers, their clerks, and assistants.
4) Resolve for the President to lay before Congress an estimate of lands not claimed by Indians.
5) The Mint resolve.
These obtained the signature of the President of the Senate and were sent off for the deliberation and approbation of the President.
Comments
As a Federalist, Hamilton would have been pro-Mint. But then Washington decides to put the Mint under Jefferson (Department of State) instead of Hamilton. This demands an explanation.....thx for posting this....
Jefferson apparently was negotiating/ horse- trading with Hamilton over uniformity of weights and measure, and viewed the passage as merely prefatory. Jefferson wished to decimate weights and measures in general, in addition adopting the 100 unit dollar.
To Alexander Hamilton
June 12. 1790.
Mr. Jefferson presents his compliments to the Secretary of the Treasury, and asks his perusal of the inclosed rough draught of a report on the subject of measures, weights and coins, in hopes that the Secretary of the Treasury may be able to accommodate this plan of a mint to the very small alteration of the money unit proposed in this report.—As soon as the Secretary of the Treasury shall have read it, Mr. Jefferson asks the favor of him to return it, as he wishes to submit it to the examination and correction of some mathematical friends.
The Secretary of State to William Short
Philadelphia Mar. 15. 1791
DEAR SIR
….
The time of the late Congress having expired on the 3d. instant they then separated of necessity. Much important matter was necessarily laid over: this navigation act among others. The land-law was put off, and nothing further done with the mint than to direct workmen to be engaged….
Jefferson was not an opponent of a mint per se, he viewed it as a badge of sovereignty. That is an extremely general statement. Jefferson was deeply involved in the issue since the period of the Articles of Confederation. His monetary policy though was certainly a complicating factor.