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 therefore recommended only by considerations, the operation of which can never be very extensive.