COMMENTARIES, 27 DECEMBER 1787

gress, to the different officers of the various staff departments, are un-
controvertible facts, and that a great proportion of those monies, to
the amount of some millions of dollars, remains to this day unac-
counted for, cannot be denied, and if it should, I presume a recurrence
to the treasury, and other public offices, will establish it beyond the
possibility of dispute.4
The people of America are impoverished by a long and ruinous war,
borne down with taxes; and it requires their utmost exertions to pay
their foreign and domestic debts. In this situation, my fellow citizens,
would it be prudent, would it be justifiable, like a neighbouring state,
to commence a jubilee, kindle up bonfires, set your bells ringing, and
execute a general release to the public debtors5-debtors who have
sported away your substance6 in the hour of your distress, and who now
wantonly riot on the spoils of your bleeding count[r]y?-it certainly
would not. You ought therefore seriously to consider, before you give
your fiat to an instrument, which will inevitably annihilate the debts
due to the United States. I am sensible, ex post facto laws are generally
deemed dangerous and iniquitous-and, in this point of view, their
prohibition has been held out, by the advocates of the new constitution,
as a lure for its adoption. History, and daily experience however, evince
their necessity in some cases, particularly for the purpose of bringing
those, concerned in the management of public monies, to justice. It is
well worthy of observation, my friends and fellow citizens, that by the
new constitution, our most7 inestimable rights, the trial by jury, and the
freedom of the press; nay, even the liberty of conscience, are committed
to the mercy of the general government, without a single stipulation
for their security, and you are told by its advocates, that these important
privileges are safely deposited. That the dangers apprehended from
their abuse are imaginary and idle-and that from the nature of the
government, a bill of rights would have been superfluous and ridicu-
lous. How then are we to reconcile this restriction of power, in the
representatives of the people, as to ex post facto laws, with the assertion
that all power may be safely entrusted to them. Is it not a solecism in
politics, through fear of the abuse of a power, which is in some in-
stances absolutely necessary, totally to prohibit a government from the
exercise of it-and yet commit our most important rights (which can
never be necessary to promote the public good) into their hand, with-
out the least limitation; you have been informed, in a speech made in
favour of the new constitution, by one of its framers, and who (if credit
can be given to common fame) took a principal lead in the business,
that "it is the nature of man to pursue his own interest in preference
to the public good."8-and as it is well known, that there were gentle-

475