Weeks of debate ensued, and the deepest impression made by a careful perusal of the record is the inability of members to appreciate the importance of the issues.  Much of the tedious and pointless character of their speeches may be ascribed to the lack of the personal presence of the Secretary.  There being nothing to focus the debate and exclude the fictitious and irrelevant, it rambled in any direction a speaker’s fancy might suggest.  Moreover, its quality was impaired because any consideration of motive was of the nature of talking about a man behind his back and this, everyone knows, is very different from saying things to his face.  Assertions and innuendos which would hardly have been hazarded had Hamilton been present, or which, had they been made, would have been forthwith met and refuted, were indulged in without restraint.  Although one of the reasons given for requiring a written report was that the House would be the better informed, the debate does not indicate that the arguments by which Hamilton had vindicated his proposals had really been apprehended.

The question whether or not any discrimination could be made between original holders of the public securities and those who had acquired them by purchase was considered at length by Hamilton in his report.  The public securities had been at such a heavy discount that now, if they were to be met at face value, speculators would reap large profits.  Hamilton put the case of the opposition as strongly as possible.  It might be urged that it was unreasonable “to pay twenty shillings in the pound to one who had not given more for it than three or four; and it is added that it would be hard to aggravate the misfortune of the first owner, who, probably through necessity, parted with, his property at so great a loss, by obliging him to contribute to the profit of the person who had speculated on his distresses.”  Nevertheless, Hamilton submitted considerations showing that discrimination would be “equally unjust and impolitic, as highly injurious even to the original holders of public securities, as ruinous to public credit.”  It is unnecessary to repeat the lucid argument by which Hamilton demonstrated the soundness of his position, for security of transfer is now well understood to be an essential element of public credit; but the special point of interest is that the debate simply ignored Hamilton’s argument and rambled along over the superficial aspects of the case, dwelling upon the sorrows of those who had parted with their holdings, and exhibiting their situation as the most important matter to be considered.