What are the arguments for and against giving money to the people of Savannah for the massive fire that destroyed their city in 1796? Who has the better arguments? Why? House of Representatives, Relief to Savannah 1. Mr. W. Smith wished the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the resolution, which he had the other day laid upon the table, proposing to afford some relief to the sufferers by the late fire at Savannah. For his part, he said, he could see no reasonable objection which could be made to so benevolent a proposition. A gentleman in the House had got a plan of the ruins of the city; it was, indeed, a most distressful scene. There had never occurred so calamitous an event of the kind in the United States, or which had so strong a claim upon the General Government for relief. He said they had granted assistance to the sufferers by fire at St. Domingo; and surely if it were justifiable to grant relief to foreigners in distress, it was at least equally so when the objects were our own citizens. If gentlemen had objections to the measure, he wished they would state them. The sum with which he should think of filling up the blank would not be such as to materially affect our finances. 2. [Mr. Macon:] The sufferings of the people of Savannah were doubtless very great; no one could help feeling for them. But he wished gentlemen to put their finger upon that part of the Constitution which gave that House power to afford them relief. Many other towns had suffered very considerably by fire. He believed he knew one that had suffered more than Savannah in proportion to its size: he alluded to Lexington in Virginia, as every house in the place was burnt. If the United States were to become underwriters to the whole Union, where must the line be drawn when their assistance might be claimed? Was it when three-fourths or four-fifths of a town was destroyed, or what other proportion? Insurance offices were the proper securities against fire. If the Government were to come forward in one instance, it must come forward in all, since every sufferer's claim stood upon the same footing. The sum which had been given to the sufferers at St. Domingo was to be charged to the French Republic, and that given to Count de Grasse's daughters was in consideration of their father's services. But New York had as great right to come forward and expect relief as Savannah. He felt for the sufferers in all these cases, but he felt as tenderly for the Constitution; he had examined it, and it did not authorize any such grant. He should, therefore, be very unwilling to act contrary to it. 3. Mr. Rutherford said, he felt a great deal of force on what gentlemen had said. There were two circumstances which were perfectly conclusive in his mind. He saw it our duty to grant relief from humanity and from policy. Savannah was a city of a minor, helpless State; it was a very young State, yet it was a part of the Union, and as such, was as much entitled to protect.

1. What are the arguments for and against giving money to the people of Savannah for the massive
fire that destroyed their city in 1796? Who has the better arguments? Why?
House of Representatives, Relief to Savannah
1. Mr. W. Smith wished the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
resolution, which he had the other day laid upon the table, proposing to afford some relief to the
sufferers by the late fire at Savannah. For his part, he said, he could see no reasonable objection
which could be made to so benevolent a proposition. A gentleman in the House had got a plan of
the ruins of the city; it was, indeed, a most distressful scene. There had never occurred so
calamitous an event of the kind in the United States, or which had so strong a claim upon the
General Government for relief. He said they had granted assistance to the sufferers by fire at St.
Domingo; and surely if it were justifiable to grant relief to foreigners in distress, it was at least
equally so when the objects were our own citizens. If gentlemen had objections to the measure,
he wished they would state them. The sum with which he should think of filling up the blank
would not be such as to materially affect our finances.
2. [Mr. Macon:] The sufferings of the people of Savannah were doubtless very great; no one
could help feeling for them. But he wished gentlemen to put their finger upon that part of the
Constitution which gave that House power to afford them relief. Many other towns had suffered
very considerably by fire. He believed he knew one that had suffered more than Savannah in
proportion to its size: he alluded to Lexington in Virginia, as every house in the place was burnt.
If the United States were to become underwriters to the whole Union, where must the line be
drawn when their assistance might be claimed? Was it when three-fourths or four-fifths of a
town was destroyed, or what other proportion? Insurance offices were the proper securities
against fire. If the Government were to come forward in one instance, it must come forward in
all, since every sufferer's claim stood upon the same footing. The sum which had been given to
the sufferers at St. Domingo was to be charged to the French Republic, and that given to Count
de Grasse's daughters was in consideration of their father's services. But New York had as great
right to come forward and expect relief as Savannah. He felt for the sufferers in all these cases,
but he felt as tenderly for the Constitution; he had examined it, and it did not authorize any such
grant. He should, therefore, be very unwilling to act contrary to it.
3. Mr. Rutherford said, he felt a great deal of force on what gentlemen had said. There were two
circumstances which were perfectly conclusive in his mind. He saw it our duty to grant relief
from humanity and from policy. Savannah was a city of a minor, helpless State; it was a very
young State, yet it was a part of the Union, and as such, was as much entitled to protection as any
State under such a dire misfortune; and it became Congress to alleviate their great distress. They
have lost much; they have, many of them, lost their all. To say we will not assist to relieve, when

2. almost every State in the Union is putting their shoulders to support these people's burden, is
wrong. The State of Pennsylvania has done itself immortal honor in the relief it has afforded, and
shall we not help to support this part of the family in their distress? This State is a branch of the
great family of the Union; it would be, in my idea, extremely inconsistent to neglect them. He
hoped the motion would be adopted, and he hoped it would never be said that the General
Government refused to provide help in such a poignant distress occurring in one of its principal
towns.
4. Mr. Hartley said, that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Macon] had voted against both
of the bills which had been referred to. He knew no difference between the Constitution of the
United States and that of Pennsylvania, yet a vote in their House had been carried unanimously.
He thought the law for the relief of the sufferers of St. Domingo perfectly in point; for,
notwithstanding what was said about negotiation, the distress of those people had consumed all
the money before the six months were expired. If ever there was a case in which they could grant
relief, this was one. The losses at New York and Charleston would bear no comparison with that
of Savannah; they were rich and flourishing places, whilst Savannah was a small city of a new
State, and the sufferers generally poor. He hoped, therefore, the resolution would be agreed to.
5. Mr. Moore said, the laws which had been adduced as precedents were not in point; for the one
sum we were to have credit with the French Republic, and the other was in consideration of past
services. The distress of the people of Savannah was not an object of legislation; every individual
citizen could, if he pleased, show his individual humanity by subscribing to their relief; but it
was not Constitutional for them to afford relief from the Treasury. If, however, the principle was
adopted, it should be general. Every sufferer had an equal claim. Lexington, in Virginia,
contained only one hundred houses, and all except two had been destroyed by fire. He should
therefore move to add Lexington to Savannah in the resolution before them; though he would
observe, as he did not approve of the principle, he should vote against them both.
6. Mr. W. Smith wished gentlemen not to endeavor to defeat the proposition before them by an
amendment. He did not think there could be a comparison made between the distress occasioned
by a fire in a small town and one in a populous city. The destruction of Savannah was a great
loss in a national view, as it would cause a considerable defalcation in the revenue, and probably
any money they might advance for the relief of the citizens would be amply compensated, by
enabling the city the sooner to resume its former importance in the commercial scale.
7. Mr. Venable did not see the difference between the two cases which was so distinguishable to
the gentleman last up. Because Savannah was a commercial city, its distress, according to that
gentleman, was indescribable, but when a like scene was exhibited in a small town, it was no
longer an object which touched his feelings. His humanity went no where but where commerce
was to be found. He asked whether the United States might not as well lose revenue in the first

3. instance, as put money into the people's pockets to pay it with? Humanity was the same every
where. A person who lost his all in a village, felt the misfortune as heavily as he who had a like
loss in a city, and perhaps more so, since the citizen would have a better opportunity by means of
commerce of retrieving his loss. He was against the general principle, as he believed, if acted
upon, it would bring such claims upon the Treasury as it would not be able to answer.
8. Mr. Murray thought the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Venable] carried his idea of relief too
far. He had no idea that the House, or any Legislature, could undertake to make good individual
misfortunes. He was of opinion that the lines which separated individual from national cases,
were very observable; the one was happening every day, the other seldom occurred. When a
large town is burnt down, and that town is an important Southern frontier town, it is surely a
national calamity, and has a claim upon the humanity of the country. It was true, the claim was
not of such a nature as to be brought into a Court of Justice, but it was a calamity in which the
whole nation sympathized. It was not only a claim upon the humanity of the nation, but also
upon its policy, as, by restoring it to its former situation, it would be able to bear its wonted part
in contributing to the revenue of the country, and would continue to carry population, arts, and
wealth to that distant part of the Union. In case of war, Savannah was a most important place. It
was necessary the Union should have a town in that situation, and he could not consider any
money which might now be advanced as given away, but as lent to that town, which might
enable it, in a few years, to resume its former situation, whilst the withholding of it might prevent
its ever rising from its present ruins.
9. Mr. Kitchell was opposed to the amendment and to the resolution itself. He had doubts if even
they were to give the citizens 15,000 dollars, as was proposed by the gentleman from South
Carolina, whether they should not, instead of service, be doing them an injury; because, if the
General Government were only to give this sum, the State Legislatures would proportion their
donations accordingly, and probably give much less than they would otherwise have done, if
they had not had this example before them. He had doubts as to the constitutionality of the
measure; he thought the Constitution did not authorize them to make such a use of public money;
however he thought it might be a very flexible instrument; it would bend to every situation, and
every situation to that. He thought, in this instance, if we grant money, while we attempt to serve,
we shall eventually injure. As to what the gentleman from Virginia says of Lexington, Mr. K.
thought it had been fully relieved; however he should vote against both propositions.
10. Mr. Page said, that he was sorry that his colleague had made this amendment, as he had done
it with a view to defeat the original resolution. If humanity alone were to direct his vote upon this
question, and if the amendment had been proposed more early and singly, he might have voted
for it. But that not being the case, it, as well as motives of general policy, influenced him in favor
of the original motion. He had reasons which could not apply to the amendment. He should vote

4. against it. He was bound by order to confine himself to the single question before the committee.
This is, Shall the amendment be received or not? He declared it as his opinion that the case of
Lexington ought not to be connected with that of Savannah, which had been, as stated by the
member from South Carolina, materially different. He was restrained by order from entering into
the merits of the original resolution, but he thought that he had a right to hint at the motive of
policy which would apply to the resolution, and not to the amendment. This was, that Savannah
being an important place, it would be wise and politic to prevent its revival from being owing to
any other aid than that of the General Government of the United States. It ought not to be under
obligations to individuals, or single States, and much less to a foreign Power.
11. Mr. Hartley hoped the amendment would not prevail. If the loss of the people at Lexington
had been greater than they could support, they would doubtless have applied to the Legislature of
Virginia, but he had not heard of any such application having been made. He agreed with the
gentleman last up, that the General Government ought to relieve distresses of this kind.
12. Mr. Murray inquired when the fire happened at Lexington?
13. Mr. Moore answered, about nine months ago. He thought it was the duty of the United States
first to pay the claims which were made upon them by distressed soldiers and others for past
services, who were denied justice because they had passed an act of limitation. If they were to
act from generosity, he said that generosity ought to be extended universally. It was a new
doctrine that because a sufferer by fire did not live in a commercial city he was not equally
entitled to relief with the inhabitants of a city, and that though such persons were called upon to
contribute to the losses of others, they could have no redress for their own. This seemed as if
favorite spots were to be selected upon which special favor was to be shown. He was opposed to
all such humanity.
14. Mr. Clairborne was against the amendment, but he hoped the resolution would be agreed to.
He was sorry any gentleman should propose an amendment like this, purposely to defeat a
motion which would tend to relieve such sufferers as those of Georgia must be. He was not
certain whether he could vote upon Constitutional grounds or not. It was a sharp conflict between
humanity to that suffering country and the Constitution. If any case could be admissible, he
thought this could; it ought to be remembered, that that part of the Union has suffered much.
Georgia was a slaughter-pen during the war, besides being continually harassed by the hostile
Indians. He thought 15,000 dollars would not be ill-spent, as from motives of policy it would be
of more advantage to the United States from the quick return the revenue would gain. Indeed, if
Constitutional, he hoped the sum would be made more than proposed. These are your fellow-
citizens who are suffering, and if not speedily relieved, the whole interest will be involved. If in
order, he would vote that the Committee rise, to enable him and, perhaps, many others, to consult
whether relief could be constitutionally granted? He said he felt a great propensity to do it.

5. 15. The motion was put and negatived.
16. Mr. Harper hoped the amendment would be rejected, for the same reason that he hoped all
amendments which were brought forward with the same view with which it was produced, viz:
to defeat the original motion, might be rejected. He thought every proposition should stand or
fall upon its own ground. He wished that of his colleague to do so. Mr. H. insisted upon the
dissimilarity of the two cases, and that the distinction of great and small calamity was sufficient
to distinguish the two cases. With respect to the constitutionality of affording the relief in
question, that had already been determined by the several instances which had been quoted,
which were also founded upon humanity. The present case might justly be included under the
head of promoting the general welfare of the country. Gentlemen who doubted the
constitutionality of the present proceeding, had done the same in the instances alluded to. But,
since their doubts had been so frequently overruled, he hoped they should hear no more of them.
With respect to the policy of the measure, Savannah, he said, was the only considerable port
except Charleston, which the United States had in that quarter. It was situated at the mouth of a
river which watered a space of country containing a thousand square miles. The average revenue
of this city was $76,000. Was not this an object of importance? Was it not an object to foster, to
relieve the distresses of such a place? Many great statesmen had employed themselves in
founding cities, and should they not hold out a helping hand to one in distress? Peter the Great
founded a city upon a morass, and Louis XIV. attempted to build one in the English channel. He
trusted the American Government would have more wisdom than to see one of her's sink for
want of a little timely assistance.