money they had a&ually advanced ? No—they were to receive this ample justice by a bit of paper nominally for 10s. but which this very measure would instantly depreciate to Bs. or 6s. They would have this confolation> that, according to the gentleman's reasoning, they would still have a claim against the government for the bal- Jance ; for it the original holder, by felling his certificate for 4s. has now a just claim against the government for the balance of 16s. which it is afTerted he has, of course the alienee, to whom the public should now acknowledge a debt of 10s. which he should fell for only 6s. would hereafter have a just demand against the public for 4s. This reasoning might be carried further* for it would follow that whenever the public lhall pay in paper which lhall depreciate, the feller will have a demand against the govern ment for the difference. From the diftanceof time at which these securities were ifTued, it may be reasonably supposed that many of the original holders are now dead : the average life of man is estimated at fcven years, according to the mod accurate calculation on insurance of lives. Some of them aredifperfed in foreign countries, or fettled in the western territory ; and it Would be right before the Hou<e took such a step as this, to understand clearly to what amount these a lienations had been made ; at present they were uninformed on thefubjett, and had no documents before them. If these aliena tions were inconsiderable, this projett would be dangerous, even admitting its justice. History affords no precedent for the mea sure. The gentleman from Virginia, whose industry was equal to his ability, would have produced some similar cafe, had any exifled. The South»Sea fckeme was totally inapplicable : there the dire&ors of the company having been guilty of the moll enor mous frands and villainous prattices, the government confifcated their estates and bestowed them on the company which they had been the means of ruining, instead of promoting their interests of which they had been appointed the guardians. Were the pur chasers of securities chargeable with any crimes for which they merited confifcation ? Were they appointed by law the guardians of the property of the original holders ? Nor was the other instance, refpefting the depreciation of pay made good tothe officers during the war, more in point, for there the public paid them with the public money, and not with that of individuals. The constitution itfelf, he said, wasoppofedto the measure, for it was an ex post facto law, which was prohibited in express terms. The transferance of public securities was lawful at the time these alienations were made ; an attempt therefore to punifti the transferees, is an attempt to make an ex post facto law, by making that now unlawful which wa« lawful at the time it was done ; it altersthe nature of the tranfaftion, and annexes the idea of guilt to that which, at the moment of commiflion, was not on ly perfectly innocent, but was explicitly authorised and encour aged by a public ast of Congress. By that ast those who had mo ney were invited to purchase of thole who held securities; and now they were called upon to punifti the purchasers who bought under that invitation. The constitution restrains the states from parting any laws impairing the force of contrasts : a fortiori, is the legislature of the union restrained. What an example to hold up to the judiciary of the United States ! How could they annul a Hate law, when the state would be able to plead a precedent on the part of Congress ; The right of property was a sacred right ; no tribunal on earth, nor even legislative body, could deprive a citizen of his property, unlefsfor a fair equivalent, for the public welfare. The purchaser was veiled, by the sale, with an absolute right to the full amount of the security, and it was beyond their authority to divert him of it. They might, indeed, by an ast of power, declare that he ftiould be paid only half; but his right to the other moiety would not be extinguiftied. It had been said that the original holder still had a claim against the public, be cause he had received only 2s. 6d. for services worth 20s. On the fame principle, and with more justice, the present holder would still have a claim for 10s. because he has the public bonds for 20s. No ingenuity can overcome these stubborn principles of Jaw and justice ; they are immutable and must ultimately prevail. The house had been told, that if the government had defrauded the original holders out of their due-s, it was fit the public Ihould rcftify the fraud : the former government was not deficient in in clination to do them ample justice, but from the imbecility of the confederation had not the means. In those days of democratic enthusiasm, the people were afraid of an energetic government: having so recently experienced the severity of their former one, the citizens of these states were cautious in trusting any government with power ; and it is not improbable, that some of the original holders, who fuffered these embarraffmenls from the want as a government competent to the payment of its debts, would them lelves have opposed the vesting Congress with powers adequate to thisobjeft. Even the present constitution, which is a mild one, met with confideiable opposition : had it been rejected, the pub lic securities would have nevet been paid. Public opinion had been mentioned,as favoring the plan: no thing was so difficult to attain, as a knowledge of public opinion ; but as far as he had been able to collett the public opinion, it was against themeafure. Publications innewfpapers appeared indeed on both fides, but a greater number against it. The legislature of his state had strongly exprcfTed their sentiments, by rcje&ing al most unamioufly a similar project; and in society he had met with but few advocates for it. Tho it had been admitted that no instance of a similar nature had ever existed in other countries, yet it was alTcrted that this was because the depreciation of public securities in Europe bore no comparison ■with those in the United States. The securities in England had fallen to 70 per cent, without occasioning an interposition of the government, and there was no reason to aflert, that a greater depre ciation would have induced an interference ; if the measure was un just in the one cafe it was equally so in the other ; the increaf. d rate ot depreciation could not juftify it; for where would it cease to be unjust and begin to be just ? What is the precise point of de preciation at which the government could be warranted in step ping in and depriving the holders of their rights? Right and ■wrong cannot depend on the amendment of depreciation ; they are fixed principles which cannotfluftuate. The hardship of requiring those who have loft four sixths of their due to contributeto the payment of taxes has been noticed When they fold their certificates they thought that the person to whom they fold would one day or other receive fomthing for it ; and they knew that he could receive nothing unless the debt were funded, and that in such cafe they would be compelled to contri bute their proportion of taxes. If they, on the other hand, were imprefled with the idea that the purchaser would never be paid, then the bargin was not a fair one on their part, for they took, the purchaser's money and gave him what in their belief was not equi valent. The impolicy of the measure is evident, becaufc it will check the negociability of public securities ; will enhance the terms of future loans, ana injure the public credit. Public debts were said by some to be public benefits; doubtful as this doctrine may be, it is acknowledged universally that without a negociable qua lity, instead of being of any utility, they would be a most griev ous burden to the community. Who would purchase when he had before his eyes the terrors of a discrimination ; a future occasi on may arife,when, from the expences of a war or other emergen- similar attack might well be apprehended. Purhafers there fore will be rare, and the risk they will run reftrainthem from giving the full value of the public securities. This will operate then as a considerable injury to the original holders who never ali enated their certificates, and who ought not to be involved in the pcrnicious consequences of this measure. With refpett to im practicability it was not the ftrongeftobje&ion with him, because it he were persuaded that it was both just aud politic, he would go every length in endeavouring to accomplish it ; but, even on this head, difficulties innumerable appeared. Some which were un answerable had been mentioned, and it had been clcarly Ihewn, that it was absolutely impofliDle to trace the original holders. He had chosen to combat the measure on its principle, because he thought iL was not a just one, and the eftablilhment of it might lead hereafter to future interferences and unhappy consequences. It was the wisest policy of governments to adhere ltri£My to their plighted faith, when it was in their power to do 10, even should, such llrift adherence work an injury to some part of the community : this was the prattice with nations in the cafe of a trea ty, which, when made by competent authority, they considered themtelves bound to observe, although they deemed it disadvanta geous to them, at lead a refufal lhould deter other nations from treating with them in future; it is by this line ofcondu£t that pub lic credit can alone be supported. Whatever may be the merits of the alienors, or the speculations of the alienees of public lecuri ties, it was not the business of government to interpose ; there are the contra£ls— they mutt be paid as far as the public resources will extend. The claim of thofc unfortunate creditors whose distress drove them to the necessity of facrificing their certificates, was a claim on the humanity of Congress ; and he lhould not be oppoled to giving them relief, provided the funds were taken out of the public treasury, and not in the manner proposed. In whatever light he viewed the project under consideration, he felt a strong conviction that it was such a one osought to be rejected. Mr. Ames agreed with Mr. Madison in regard to the validity of the debt. There was proprie ty in faying the nation is the fame, tho the go vernment is changed. The debt is the price of our liberties, and cannot be diininilhed a farthing the gentleman fays—and why—becanfe the go vernment, as one of the contracting parties can not annul, or vary the bargain, without the con sent of the other. If the measure proposed by that gentleman corresponds with that found prin ciple, he lhould have the pleasure of agreeing with him on the ultimate decilion—hut if the measure lhould be found, on a fairdifcuflion,to be subver sive of that principle, it would not merit the coun tenance of the committee. A claim upon our justice is made on behalf of the original holders of securities who have transferred them. There is a benevolent pre judice in their favor. Does the plighted faith of the country stand charged to pay the difference between the price their fecuritics fold for in the market and the nominal sum ? In order to make the affirmative appear, the worthy gentleman has said, that the paper is the only evidence of a pri or debt—and while the paper was fold, the resi duary right to the debt still remained in the fel ler. Supposing this novel doctrine to be true, which cannot be conceded, it will not warrant any conclusion in prejudice of any purchaser of the loan office debt. For the paper was given when the loan was made. As 110 prior defit ex isted, the paper is the very debt. The gentle man ought therefore to confine his motion to the army debt, as his principle seems inapplicable to any other. And even on liquidating the army debt, the certificate extinguished the prior debt— otherwise the public would be twice charged —As when one man owes another on account, and gives his bond for the ballance, the account is 110 longer of force. By the terms of the certificate, the person transfering has loft his claim against the public. He has freely transferred—for if vi olence or fraud were pra<ftifcd, the law will as. ford him redress. 111 society, as well as in a state of nature, property is changed by the consent of the last occupant. He may dispose of it by gift, or at half price—and give a complete title. Nor will the pretence that this transfer was free only in appearance, avail—for the motives which dif posed the owner to fell cannot affect the right of the purchaser. Every such creditor risked some thing—either that government would not pay him at all, or not in due season. The risk com puted in free and open market will be near right. It is a kind of insurance against these risks, and the insurers and insured will calculate the rate of insurance better than government can do it. If there is anew risk of government interposing, it seems that the purchaser, who may be called the insurer, did not rate his risk high enough. It seems pretty clear, therefore, that there is 110 claim on the stipulated justice of the country. Another fort of justice is set up—a different fort from that which we were taught in the fcliools and churches. It is called abftratft justice, and is said to demand allowance for the loss sustained by the failure of public payments. No man ref pecfts more than Ido the merit of the army. But the soldiers, at least, had something towards jus tice by their bounty. Stock has fold in England at 50 pr. cent, dif count, and yet no retribution has been made.— Where then does this new line of justice begin ? It can scarcely be denied that their claim, if they have any, is not a debt. The arguments alledged by the gentlemen are addrefled merely to the compassion and generosity of the government. Nor do I know that there is any ground for faying that public opinion is in their favor. It will be allowed that ifjuftice is to be done, it should be impartial justice. Partiality would be more cruel than total neglect—Will you refufe to make a mends for paper money, for property taken by our army in Canada, for lofles sustained during the war, for towns burned ? In this last cafe, it is to be observed, that government has promised protection—and inability to protect it as much a debt as the cafe in question. The intermediate holders who bought at 6/8, and defpairingof go vernment fold out at 2/6, have an equal claim. Are all these to be excluded ?—Let us not break contracts for half justice. The example ofpaper -358- money is adduced to {hew chat the public made u>. lofles—but this is an example of the public fulfil ing it's con trad:—not annulingit. Paper monev is a bad source to draw examples from. J But is it true that jultice requires thepublic to pay tor all the lolies fullained in times of calami ty > 1 think not—for by fraud the government would be obliged to pay for more than was loft, The resources of the fufferers will more eafi!y re . pair such lofles than the government can make them good—and befides,in extreme cases, it would extend and prolong the evil. If an army lhould invade England, and the city of London lhould be bnrned, and the country laid walte by order of the King, all Europe could not pay for it. What is justice—a line of public conduct which necef. farily tends to utility. No pretence of abftra<ft jultice can be valid, it it tends to evil rather than good. But if there subsists a claim on the public jultice it cannot impair the debt in the hands of the pre sent holder for which the public faith is pledged. It is alledged that the feller, who fold for a trifle will be taxed to pay the purchaser. He certainly ought to fare as other citizens do. But taxesare in proportion to property. If he has propertv then the plea of neceliityis deft royed. If he has none then his taxes will be a mere trifle. The projed: is not justice, even to those whom it pretends to relieve. If you allow less to the purchasers than they gave, it is downright rob bery. If you allow more, it is half way justice to those who have fold. I would not rilk everything to do justice, as it is called, and then not doit. But this fragment of justice cannot be given to some, without wronging others. You impair the property in the hands of the present ori ginal holders. It is not supposed that the alie nated property is near equal to that which is still in the hands of the firft holders. Be that as it may, I believe with confidence that it would be cheaper for the present holders to pay the mar ket price ofthe paper proposed to be given to the former holders, than to fuffer the shock which this measure would give to the credit of their pa per. I will not enter now into the merits ofthe Secretary's plan, but 1 think it not difficult to shew that he proposes better justice to the present original holders than is contained in the motion, and that the debt funded on his plan would fell for more in the market. Great funis have been lent to the public by trustees who adted for others, and only lent their names. Many original cre ditors were not firft holders—supplies were fur nifhed to contractors for the army, who got cre dit, and afterwards paid in paper, as they recei ved it of the public. Many towns hired soldiers for a gross fuin, and agreed to take the wages — Private debts have been paid at par.—A man in embarrafledcircumftances, instead of compound ing with his creditors for ten or a dozen years forbearance, paid them at par, or near it, in pub lic paper, which in that period was iuppofed to be as likely to be paid as his private note. No less a sum than 214000 dollars were paid in this way to one mercantile house, at about 1 js. in the pound. Compare the gross injustice of these ca ses with the pretended justice of the motion—con sider that it pretends to pay the purchaser.—But loan office certificates have fold from 1 js. and 18s. in the pound to ys. Foreign purchasers gave more than our market price. Before they bought, they got certificates of the nature of the debt, that it was not liable to any dedudtion, and that the transfer would be valid. People in the firft offices in this country and abroad signed them, jooooo dollars were bought for one Dutch house, and registered, and the partners in the sum have divided the certificates by giving their own bonds. What will be the effedt ? Justice or injustice ? In these cases, the gentleman will admit, that the rights of these people are perfedt. The debt he fays himfelf cannot be diminished a farthing.— Property is sacred. The right to a single dollar cannot be violated. Let the gentleman then ac knowledge that he inuft give up his project,or his principles. I have endeavored to shew what fort of abstract justice this is. But if it should be allowed that there is a claim of justice, what then ? Let them claim justice of those who have done them injus tice, not ofthe fair purchaser. Let us examine the claims of the purchasers. The gentleman's argument on this point merits attention—if it is right, for it's novelty in Con grefs—ifwrong, for it's tendency. Herel think it neceflary to apologize—not for my fentiinents — their apology must spring from their propriety— but for the manner in which I express them. — My zealous conviction may seem to arraign the opinions of other gentlemen—whom I refpectas I ought. I know that men of the best intentions entertain a favorable opinion of a discrimination. There is a wish to do more than justice to the one, and the heart, betrayed by it's fympatliy, con fentsto injustice to the others. But, Sir, I cannot claim the merit of moderation on this point. I will not pretend that I doubted firft and then de cided. The principles of my education, and the habits of my life, predisposed me to-believe, and my short experience and reading have confirmed
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers