Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/511

1787.] legislature necessary; and that, in that mode, no opposition would be excited; whereas, an absolute prohibition of paper money would rouse the most desperate opposition from its partisans.

Mr. SHERMAN thought this a favorable crisis for crushing paper money. If the consent of the legislature could authorize emissions of it, the friends of paper money would make every exertion to get into the legislature in order to license it.

The question being divided,—on the first part, "nor emit bills of credit"—

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 8; Virginia, no, 1; Maryland, divided.

The remaining part of Mr. Wilson's and Mr. Sherman's motion was agreed to, ''nem. con.''$239$

Mr. KING moved to add, in the words used in the ordinance of Congress establishing new states, a prohibition on the states to interfere in private contracts.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. This would be going too far. There are a thousand laws relating to bringing actions, limitations of actions, &c., which affect contracts. The judicial power of the United States will be a protection in cases within their jurisdiction; and within the state itself a majority must rule, whatever may be the mischief done among themselves.

Mr. SHERMAN. Why then prohibit bills of credit?

Mr. WILSON was in favor of Mr. King's motion.

Mr. MADISON admitted that inconveniences might arise from such a prohibition; but thought on the whole it would be overbalanced by the utility of it. He conceived, however, that a negative on the state laws could alone secure the effect. Evasions might and would be devised by the ingenuity of the legislatures.

Col. MASON. This is carrying the restraint too far. Cases will happen, that cannot be foreseen, where some kind of interference will be proper and essential. He mentioned the case of limiting the period for bringing actions on open account—that of bonds after a certain lapse of time—asking, whether it was proper to tie the hands of the states from making provision in such cases.

Mr. WILSON. The answer to these objections is, that retrospective interferences only are to be prohibited.

Mr. MADISON. Is not that already done by the prohibition of ex post facto laws, which will oblige the judges to declare such interferences null and void.$240$

Mr. RUTLEDGE moved, instead of Mr. King's motion, to insert, "nor pass bills of attainder, nor retrospective [in the printed Journal, "ex post facto,"] laws."

On which motion,—

New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 7; Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, no. 3.

Mr. MADISON moved to insert, after the word "reprisal,"