oved to amend the resolution before the committee so as to
require a resettlement of the debt.

The amendment was opposed by Mr. Boudinot, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Ames, Mr.
Sherman, Mr. Hartley, and Mr. Goodhue. They stated at large the terms
on which the debt had been contracted, and urged the confidence which
the creditors had a right to place in the government for its discharge
according to settlements already made, and acknowledgments already
given. The idea that the legislative body could diminish an
ascertained debt was reprobated with great force, as being at the same
time unjust, impolitic, and subversive of every principle on which
public contracts are founded. The evidences of debt possessed by the
creditors of the United States were considered as public bonds, for
the redemption of which the property and the labour of the people were
pledged.

After the debate had been protracted to some length, the question was
taken on Mr. Scott's amendment, and it passed in the negative.

Mr. Madison then rose, and, in an eloquent speech, replete with
argument, proposed an amendment to the resolution, the effect of which
was to discriminate between the public creditors, so as to pay the
present holder of assignable paper the highest price it had borne in
the market, and give the residue to the person with whom the debt was
originally contracted. Where the original creditor had never parted
with his claim, he was to receive the whole sum acknowledged to be due
on the face of the certificate.

This motion was supported by Mr. Jackson, Mr. White, Mr. Moore, Mr.
Page, Mr. Stone, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Seney.

It was opposed with great earnestness and strength of argument, by Mr.
Sedgewick, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, Mr. Ames, Mr.
Gerry, Mr. Boudinot, Mr. Wadsworth, Mr. Goodhue, Mr. Hartley, Mr.
Bland, Mr. Benson, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Livermore.

The argument was ably supported on both sides, was long, animated, and
interesting. At length the question was put, and the amendment was
rejected by a great majority.

This discussion deeply engaged the public attention. The proposition
was new and interesting. That the debt ought to be diminished for the
public advantage, was an opinion which had frequently been advanced,
and was maintained by many. But a reduction from the claims of its
present holders for the benefit of those who had sold their rights,
was a measure which saved nothing to the public purse, and was
the