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