If these ideas be just, and I think that an inspection of the article itself will show them to be so, then it will follow, that a valuation made for one year cannot properly apply to any preceding or subsequent year; more especially, if any considerable change take place in the respective circumstances of the several States. Let us, for instance, suppose, that in the year 1776, five hundred acres of land in the State A were worth one thousand pounds; that in the year 1777, they were worth five hundred pounds; and in the year 1778, one hundred pounds; while, during the whole period, five hundred acres in the State B were worth five hundred pounds. Let us suppose the States A and B to have been of the same extent, and that thirty pounds were to have been paid annually by those States according to the apportionment of the confederation, they would then have been charged as follows; in 1776, the State A twenty pounds, and B ten pounds; in 1777, A fifteen pounds, and B fifteen pounds; and in 1778 A five pounds, and B twentyfive pounds. Thus, then, of three times thirty or ninety pounds, A would be chargeable with twenty, fifteen, and five amounting in the whole to forty pounds; and B with ten, fifteen, and twentyfive, amounting in the whole to fifty pounds. The proportion, therefore, between them is as four to five; but the proportion arising from their relative wealth in either of those terms is widely different. In the first, it is as two to one. In the second, as one to one, and in the third, as one to five. Wherefore, if the whole ninety pounds were to have been apportioned on the valuation of the first year, it would have been to A sixty, and to B thirty. On that of the second A fortyfive, and B fortyfive, and on the third A fifteen, and B seventyfive. If this conclusion be fairly drawn, then a question will arise on this point. Suppose no mode of valuation adopted, how are the quotas to be ascertained? In answer to this question, I state the following positions; first, that the object of the confederation was to make an equitable apportionment; secondly, that Congress will always, when they direct a valuation, do it in an equitable mode; and thirdly, that a valuation is, at present, impracticable, much less a valuation for times past. These things admitted, and the necessity of an apportionment being also admitted, the question answers itself; for no other mode will remain, but by resorting to such lights as Congress may have on the subject, and that they determine as equitably as they can, according to those lights, which is the very thing I have already proposed. I shall trespass no longer on your Excellency's patience, than to mention, that I have detained the copies of those acts, until the further order of Congress. But if they disapprove of it, I shall immediately transmit them. I have the honor to be, &c. ROBERT MORRIS. * * * * * TO M. DE LA LUZERNE. Office of Finance, November 6th, 1781.