as insulting to common sense, as the conduct of Great Britain had been to the honour of the American nation.
He contended further on this point, that if the treaty had been observed by Great Britain, and were of conse- quence, still obligatory, it did not and could not operate where monies had been actually paid into the treasury under the laws of the state: for the provision of the treaty is, " that creditors on either side should meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted/^ The defendant, said he, hav- ing paid the money into the treasury according to the act of assembly, and the truth of the payment being admitted in the record, this article of the treaty could not support the plaintiff ^s claim. " To derive a benefit from the treaty, the plaintiff must demand a bona fide debt: that is, a debt bona fide due. The word debt implies that the thing is due; for if it be not due, how can it be a debt? To give to these words, all debts heretofore contracted, a strictly literal sense, would be to authorize a renewed demand for debts which had been actually paid off to the creditor; for these were certainly within the wm^ds of the treaty, being debts heretofore contracted — to avoid this absurd and dis- honest consequence, you must look at the intention of the thing; and the intention certainly was to embrace those cases where there had not been a legal payment I ask,^' said he, " why a payment made in gold and silver is a legal payment? Because the coin of those metals is made current by the laws of this country? If paper be made current by the same authority, why should not a payment in it, be equally valid .'^ The British subject cannot demand payment, because I con- front his demand with a receipt. Why will a receipt
�� �
