The inattention of the States to the requisitions of the United States, leaves Congress no choice between loans and military collections. Whether they can obtain loans must depend upon other people. They cannot obtain loans without credit, and they cannot have credit without funds; and they cannot get funds without the concurrence of the States. They must ask that concurrence before they can obtain it, and they must determine on the funds before they can ask. The making yearly requisitions of quotas to pay the interest of public debts will not do. It is in itself a futile measure; but if it were the best thing in the world, yet if those who are to lend do not think so, there is an end of the matter. Now the fact is, that nobody will lend upon the promise of such requisitions. And truly the compliances made with those for carrying on the war, give very little encouragement. It follows then, that Congress _must_ ask for particular funds. They have asked for one, and it is not complied with by two States out of thirteen. Shall Congress then adhere to the demand; or shall they change their application? If they should change it, could they expect that there would not then be one or two opposing States? To answer the question let it be inquired, what objects of taxation can be devised, to which exceptions cannot be made? Surely there are none. Let it be inquired next, whether there is any object so unexceptionable as that which they have fixed upon? The answer is, no. It follows then, that in changing the application, there would be less prospect of success than at present. Congress then must adhere to their requisitions; and if that fund be not granted, we cannot expect loans. But it is demonstrated by experience, that we cannot get sufficient taxes. We certainly cannot get rid of the war, and therefore the people must have their property taken by force. The necessity will justify this. But as I said before, who will justify the necessity? Surely the authors of it should think of that in season. Will it be a sufficient justification, to say that the demand of Congress is _unconstitutional_? If a thing be neither wrong nor forbidden it must be admissible. Such a requisition is nowhere forbidden, and therefore it is admissible if it be not wrong. Now it cannot be wrong to do that which one is obliged to do, be the act what it may. And Congress are obliged to make such requisitions. But further it must be admitted, that they are not contrary to the moral law. Supposing then, for argument's sake, that the thing asked for, would if granted be contrary to the confederation. If so, the grant would alter the confederation. But the grant is not to take effect without general consent. The confederation was formed by general consent, and by general consent it may be altered. The requisition, therefore, if complied with, will by that very compliance become constitutional.