This question being decided in the negative, Mr.Scott declared the opinion that the United States were not bound to pay the domestic creditors the sums specified in the certificates of debts in their possession.

He supported this opinion by urging, not that the public had received less value than was expressed on the face of the paper which had been issued, but that those to whom it had been delivered, by parting with it at two shillings and sixpence in the pound, had themselves fixed the value of their claims, and had manifested their willingness to add to their other sacrifices this deduction from their demand upon the nation.

He therefore moved to amend the resolution before the committee so as to require a resettlement of the debt.
The amendment was opposed by Mr.Boudinot, Mr.Lawrence, Mr.Ames, Mr.
Sherman, Mr.Hartley, and Mr.Goodhue.They stated at large the terms on which the debt had been contracted, and urged the confidence which the creditors had a right to place in the government for its discharge according to settlements already made, and acknowledgments already given.

The idea that the legislative body could diminish an ascertained debt was reprobated with great force, as being at the same time unjust, impolitic, and subversive of every principle on which public contracts are founded.

The evidences of debt possessed by the creditors of the United States were considered as public bonds, for the redemption of which the property and the labour of the people were pledged.
After the debate had been protracted to some length, the question was taken on Mr.Scott's amendment, and it passed in the negative.
Mr.Madison then rose, and, in an eloquent speech, replete with argument, proposed an amendment to the resolution, the effect of which was to discriminate between the public creditors, so as to pay the present holder of assignable paper the highest price it had borne in the market, and give the residue to the person with whom the debt was originally contracted.