Discount) than he could be by the Rise of it at a future Period; Every Man being able to judge better of his own Business and Situation, than the Government can for him. So much would not, perhaps, have been said on the Head of this Objection, if it did not naturally lead to a Position which has been ruinous and might prove fatal. There are many Men (and some of them honest Men) whose Zeal against Speculation leads them to be sometimes unmindful, not only of sound Policy, but even of Moral Justice. It is not uncommon to hear, that those who have bought the public Debts for small Sums, ought only to be paid their purchase Money. The Reasons given are, that they have taken Advantage of the distressed Creditor, and shewn a Diffidence in the public Faith. As to the first, it must be remembered that in giving the Creditor Money for his Debt, they have at least afforded him some Relief, which he could not obtain elsewhere; and if they are deprived of the expected Benefit, they never will afford such Relief again. As to the Second, those who buy up the public Debts shew at least as much Confidence, in the public faith, as those who sell them; but allowing (for Argument’s sake) that they have exhibited the Dif fidence complained of, it would certainly be wiser to remove than to Justify it. The one Mode tends to create, establish and secure public Credit; and the other to sap, overturn and destroy it. Policy is therefore on this (as I believe it to be on every other occasion) upon the same Side of the Question with Honesty. Honesty tells us, that the Duty of the Public to pay is like the same Duty in an Individual. Having benefited by the Advances, they are bound to replace them to the Party, or to his Representatives. The Debt is a Species of Property, and whether disposed of for the whole nominal Value, or the half, for something or for Nothing, is totally immaterial. The Right of receiving, and the Duty of paying, must always continue the same. In a word, that Government which can (thro’ the Intervention of its Courts) compel Payment of private Debts, and Performance of private Contracts, on Principles of distributive Justice, but refuse to be guided by those Principles, as to their own Contracts and Debts, merely because they are not amenable to human Laws, shews a flagitious Contempt of moral Obligations, which must necessarily weaken, as it ought to do, their Authority over the People.
Before I conclude this long Letter, it would be unpardonable not to mention a Fund which has long since been suggested, and dwells still in the Minds of many. You Doubtless Sir anticipate my naming of what are called the back Lands. The question as to the Property of those Lands, I confess myself utterly incompetent to decide, and shall not, for that Reason, presume to enter on it. But it is my Duty to mention, that the offer of a Pledge the Right to which is contested, would have ill Consequences, and could have no Good ones. It could not strengthen our Credit because no one would rely on such a Pledge, and the Recurrence to it would give unfavorable Impressions of our political Sagacity. But admitting that the Right of Congress is clear, we must remember also, that it is disputed by some considerable Members of the Confederacy. Dissentions might arise from hasty Decissions on this Subject, and a Government torne by intestine Commotions, is not likely to acquire or maintain Credit, at Home or abroad. I am not however the less clear in my Opinion, that it would be alike useful to the whole Nation, and to those very constituent Parts of it, that the entire Disposition of these Lands should be in Congress. Without entering therefore into the litigated Points, I am induced to beleive, and for that Reason to suggest the proposing this Matter to the States as an amicable Arrangement. I hope to be pardoned when I add, that considering the Situation of South Carolina and Georgia, it might be proper to ask their Consent to Matters of the clearest Right. But that, supposing the Right to be doubtful, urging a Decision in the present Moment might have