I would state the case, as if it had happened between the gentleman and myself, could he hesitate to say the whole sum was fairly mine, and surrender it up, notwithstanding the legal interference of the Government? This is a question I would not suffer myself to reason upon; I would not trust my mind with it, lest it should preponderate in favor of self-interest, though against the common principles of truth and justice. I cannot think the army would accept the interposition; we ought, therefore, to be cautious how we trifle with the honor of other people.
I do not pretend to say, that the persons intended to be relieved by the proposed scheme have not a claim against the United States; but I deny that it is a claim upon our equity or justice; it may be a claim upon our humanity; and, whether we will satisfy this claim, depends on circumstances which have no connection with the present question.
Mr. Jackson.—God forbid, Mr. Chairman, that I should trifle with the honor of men I value, and esteem so highly; it would be the last thing I could think of. But, sir, as a Legislator, I cannot consent that the pittance which was the reward of distinguished services, shall be torn from them by the arts of insidious speculators; but there are others, who have a claim in equity upon our justice, who ought not to be sacrificed to the soldier's honor.
Mr. White said he agreed with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Sedgwick) in the principle, that if a contract is made for a valuable consideration, and with the understanding of both parties, the Legislature ought not to interfere in it; and should it appear that the transaction between the original holders of certificates and the purchasers was a fair one, the dispute, in his mind, was at an end. But no gentleman had attempted to show that this was the case, though all the arguments against a discrimination were founded on that supposition. Perhaps it might be said, that every argument ought to be considered as fair; unless the contrary be proved. But where one man has obtained the property of another to the amount of £100 for £10, or £12 10s. the transaction must be explained to him, before he would believe it to be honest. What is the present case? The original holders, who have parted with the evidences of their debts, were principally common soldiers, militiamen, and farmers in indigent circumstances. Who were the purchasers? The Secretary of the Treasury tells us, that the most enlightened among our citizens are the creditors of the United States; common soldiers cannot be comprehended in this description. What must have passed, he asked, between the soldier, the militiaman, or farmer, and the purchaser? What reason could the purchaser assign for offering £10 for a paper which specified an obligation to pay £100? It must be something like this—the States will never pay you; if they do, it will be at a very remote period, so long as to be useless to you; but to relieve your present necessities, I will take the risk on myself, and give you £10. Now, could any enlightened man, he asked, in 1783, or at any subsequent period, in which time the transfers took place, believe that the independence of America was in danger, or that the debts could not be provided for?
He knew so many instances of transactions like that which he had stated, that he doubted not the greater part of the certificates had been obtained by similar means. Indeed he could not conceive any other by which they could be obtained.
He said we were, perhaps, without a precedent in any other nation which would be strictly applicable; but he desired gentlemen to determine for themselves, whether, under such circumstances, the man who had rendered services to his country should be deprived of his reward, or whether the purchaser ought to receive it. He said it was very different in the common transactions of life. If a man purchased a tract of land for £1,000, paid the money, and took a bond for the conveyance, a third person, by informing the purchaser that the seller could not make a title, or by other false suggestions should obtain a transfer of the bond in consideration of £100, and get a conveyance and possession of the land, yet, on repaying the £100, the conveyance would be set aside, and he would be restored to his land.
He gave some other instances of a similar nature, and said, he believed, if a bond, whether due, or to become due, was assigned under such circumstances, that the obligee would be justifiable in contesting it in a court of law, and that the injured person would, on application, obtain redress. He said, that in cases of extreme hardship, Courts of Equity would give relief without express proof of fraud; that this was the law of Great Britain, and was agreeable to the principles of the civil law; that the Roman jurists, he believed, had fixed the point of extreme hardship to one half of the value of the property transferred; in England the court was to judge.
He said he did not think the present holders were strictly entitled to any thing more than the original purchasers; that here the maxim, quoted on the other side of the question, that the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor, properly applied. You cannot place another on more advantageous ground than that on which you stand yourself. The plea of an innocent purchaser could not take place; the nature of the transaction must appear evident to every man concerned in the transfer.
He said the reverse of this did not hold. An assignee was not always in as advantageous a situation as the assignor; and instanced the case of an executor who should obtain the assignment of his testator's bond at an undervalue; and who, he said, could not retain in his hands the amount of the sum specified in the bond, which the creditor might have recovered, but only the sum which he actually paid for the bond.
He said, that, though in his opinion the present holders of certificates were strictly entitled to no more than what had been paid to the original holders, yet, as an investigation of that circumstance would be involved in inextricable difficulties, and since we were (as had been very properly observed and well expressed by a gentleman from South Carolina) settling the business of a family, he was willing to acquiesce in the motion of his colleague. He said, that arbitrators often gave the injured party less than his due, for peace sake; and he was willing to act on the same principle. He doubted not but courts of justice would give relief in particular cases; but in a matter of that magnitude, he thought the interference of the Legislature very proper. The South Sea business, he thought, in that respect, a good precedent. Two gentlemen had mentioned the business; he would not say they had misstated the transaction, but he thought their accounts imperfect. They said they had the documents under their hands; he wished they had been read; he had them not, but would state from memory what he thought applicable to the case in question. The directors of the South Sea Company, by various arts, induced the people to give as high as £1,000 for £100 stock; in many instances the money was paid, in others it was contracted to be paid. A gentleman has said, that Parliament interfered, not to violate, but to perfect the contract: but what did Parliament do? They confiscated the estates of the directors, and applied the amount to the relief of those who had actually paid their money, and suspended suits against those who had not paid; and authorized the debtors to discharge their debts by the payment of ten per cent. on the real value of the stock subscribed for. But if he was wrong in supposing the present holders ought to stand in the place of the first purchasers, they could be considered only as having purchased, in market, a paper of indefinite value; if, then, they get the highest market price, they are not injured.