TeachingAmericanHistory.org Homepage
Register Online About Us Search Site
Seminars & Institutes
Historical Documents Library
Audio Lectures & Discussions
Constitutional Convention
     
Home > Ratification of the Constitution > Elliot's Debates > Volume 5 > Debates in the Congress of the Confederation, from November 4, 1782, to June 21, 1783; and from February 19 to April 25, 1787.

Saturday, December 7.

No Congress.

The grand committee met again on the business of the old paper emissions, and agreed to the plan reported by the sub-committee in pursuance of Mr. FITZSIMMONS’S motion, viz., that the outstanding bills should be taken up, and certificates issued in place thereof at the rate of one real dollar for—nominal ones, and that the surpluses redeemed by particular states should be credited to them at the same rate. Mr. CARROLL alone dissented to the plan, alleging that a law of Maryland was adverse to it, which he considered as equipollent to an instruction. For filling up the blank, several rates were proposed. First, one for forty—on which the votes were, no, except Mr. Howell. Second, one for seventy-five—no; Mr. White and Mr. Howell, ay. Third, one for one hundred—no; Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Fitzsimmons, ay. Fourth, one for one hundred and fifty—no; Mr. Fitzsimmons, ay. The reasons urged in favor of one for forty were—first, an adherence to public faith; secondly, that the depreciation of the certificates would reduce the rate sufficiently low, they being now negotiated at the rate of three or four for one. The reason for one for seventy-five was—that the bills passed at that rate when they were called in, in the Eastern States; for one for one hundred—that, as popular ideas were opposed to the stipulated rate, and as adopting the current rate might hurt the credit of other securities, which derived their value from an opinion that they would be strictly redeemed, it was best to take an arbitrary rate, leaning to the side of liberality; for one for one hundred and fifty—that this was the medium depreciation when the circulation ceased. The opposition to these several rates came from the southern delegates, in some of whose states none, in others but little, had been redeemed, and in all of which the depreciation had been much greater. On this side it was observed, by Mr. MADISON, that the states which had redeemed a surplus, or even their quotas, had not done it within the period fixed by Congress, but in the last stages of depreciation, and in a great degree even after the money had ceased to circulate; that, since the supposed cessation, the money had generally changed bands at a value far below any rate that had been named; that the principle established by the plan of the 18th of March, 1780, with respect to the money in question, was, that the holder of it should receive the value at which it was current, and at which it was presumed he had received it; that a different rule, adopted with regard to the same money in different stages of its downfall, would give general dissatisfaction. The committee adjourned without coming to any decision.


 

         
Master of American History and Government:
Free Saturday Seminars for Teachers:
Free Summer Institutes for Teachers:
Historical Documents Library:
Online Audio Lectures and Discussions:
Special Exhibits:
Teaching American History Grants:


Search Site
Search Document Library

 
Printer-Friendly Version
Verizon Foundation
Support for teachingamericanhistory.org is provided by the Verizon Foundation.
A Project of the
Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University
401 College Avenue | Ashland, Ohio 44805
(419) 289-5411 | (877) 289-5411 (Toll Free)
info@TeachingAmericanHistory.org

© 2006 Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs