?rO RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION T?sd?y MADISON /l?g?t z8 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 couid 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 can not be foreseen, where some kind of in- terference will be proper, & 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 & void. Mr. Rutlidge moved instead of Mr. King's Motion to insert--"nor pass bills of attainder nor retrospective* laws" on which motion N.H. ay-- Ct. no. N.J. a�. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Virga. no. N-- C. ay. S.C. ay. Geo. ay. [Ayes- 7; noes -- 3 4 Mr. Madison moved to insert after the word "reprisal" (art. XII) the words "nor lay embargoes". He urged that such acts (by the States) would be unnecessary--impolitic -- & unjust-- Mr. Sherman thought the States ought to retain this power in order to prevent suffering & injury to their poor. Col: Mason thought the amendment would be not only improper but dangerous, as the Genl. Legislature would not
- (In the printed Journal "ex post facto ") zo
See Appendix A, CLVIII (7o-7?). The Journal is correct, according to marginal notes in the Washington and Brearley copies of the Report of the Committee of Detail.
�
