When the bill establishing the Treasury Department was taken up, Page of Virginia made a violent attack upon the clause authorizing the Secretary to “digest and report plans.”  He denounced it as “an attempt to create an undue influence” in the House.  “Nor would the mischief stop here; it would establish a precedent which might be extended until we admitted all the Ministers of the government on the floor, to explain and support the plans they have digested and reported; thus laying the foundation for an aristocracy or a detestable monarchy.”  As a matter of fact, a precedent in favor of access to Congress already existed.  The old Superintendent of Finance and the Board which succeeded him had the power now proposed for the Secretary of the Treasury.  Livermore of New Hampshire, who had been a member of the Continental Congress, admitted this fact, but held that such power was not dangerous at that time since Congress then possessed both legislative and executive authority.  They could abolish his plans and his office together, if they thought proper; “but we are restrained by a Senate and by the negative of the President,” Gerry declared his assent to the views expressed by Page.  “If the doctrine of having prime and great ministers of state was once well established, he did not doubt but that we should soon see them distinguished by a green or red ribbon, or other insignia of court favor and patronage.”

The strongest argument in favor of retaining the clause referred to was made by Fisher Ames, who had begun to display the powers of clear statement and of convincing argument that soon established his supremacy in debate.  He brought the debate at once to its proper bearings by pointing out that there were really only two matters to be considered:  whether the proposed arrangement was useful, and whether it could be safely guarded from abuse.  “The Secretary is presumed to acquire the best knowledge of the subject of finance of any member of the community.  Now, if this House is to act on the best knowledge of circumstances, it seems to follow logically that the House must obtain the evidence from that officer:  the best way of doing this will be publicly from the officer himself, by making it his duty to furnish us with it.”  In one of those eloquent passages which brighten the records of debate whenever Ames spoke at any length, he pictured the difficulties that had to be surmounted.  “If we consider the present situation of our finances, owing to a variety of causes, we shall no doubt perceive a great, although unavoidable confusion throughout the whole scene; it presents to the imagination a deep, dark, and dreary chaos; impossible to be reduced to order without the mind of the architect is clear and capacious, and his power commensurate to the occasion.”  He asked, “What improper influence could a plan reported openly and officially have on the mind of any member, more than if the scheme and information were given privately at the Secretary’s office?” Merely to call for information would not be advantageous to the House.  “It will be no mark of inattention or neglect, if he take time to consider the questions you propound; but if you make it his duty to furnish you plans ... and he neglect to perform it, his conduct or capacity is virtually impeached.  This will be furnishing an additional check.”