This jealousy, it was feared, might be carried so far, as even to create an opposition to the laws of the union.
If the states should provide for their creditors, the same sum of money must be collected from the people, as would be required if the debt should be assumed; and it would probably be collected in a manner more burdensome, than if one uniform system should be established.

If all should not make such provision, it would be unjust to leave the soldier of one state unpaid, while the services of the man who fought by his side were amply compensated; and, after having assumed the funds, it would dishonour the general government to permit a creditor for services rendered, or property advanced for the continent, to remain unsatisfied, because his claim had been transferred to the state, at a time when the state alone possessed the means of payment.
By the injured and neglected creditor, such an arrangement might justly be considered as a disreputable artifice.
Instead of delaying, it was believed to be a measure which would facilitate the settlement of accounts between the states.

Its advocates declared that they did not entertain, and never had entertained any wish to procrastinate a settlement.

On the contrary, it was greatly desired by them.

They had themselves brought forward propositions for that purpose; and they invited their adversaries to assist in improving the plan which had been introduced.
The settlement between the states, it was said, either would or would not be made.