flotuesi, &r. \ CHANCE FOR PROFITABLE INVESTMENT.—A business man with from 2 to 3 thousand Dollars Capital can get a one half interest in a Store, with nn established trade, that can be doubled by increasing the capital. For particulars inquire of the Editor of this paper, augllw.'t Tyrone*: To tresspassers.— Notice is hereby given to all persons not to tresspass on tny premises, known as the Breast work Run property, by fishing, or in any other manner, as I will prosecute all such, without re spect to persons, to the fullest extent of the law. auglriw.;* HENRY WOLVHOP. N"OTIC'E. —All in our debt will please bear in mind we are preparing to make onr fall purchases, and must have money. In many cases longer indulgence cannot be given, and we earnestly hope all who know they hare not paid its, will read this notice, come forward and pay up at once. Our terms are six months, and UJMJII all accounts, we charge interest, after due. —gj. A. II CRAMER A CO. MONEY SAVED.—lntending toa dopt the cash system Oct. I. 1867, and desi rous of reducing our stock as low as possible, before making fall purchases, we will offer many great bargains for CASH. A. 11. CRAMER A CO. aug9 I UMBER.—6O,OOO feet Oak, White I J and Yellow Pine Lumber on hands and for sale by J. B. WILLIAMS A CO., junl4.'67tf Bloody Run, Pa. AOTTA6E SEMINARY FOR VJ YOUNtI LADIES, POTTSTOWN, PA —This Institution is located on the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad, two hours ride from Philadel phia. The next yearly session will open Tuesday, September 10th. to continue ten mouths. Terms for Boarding and Tuition for ten months. $2(1(1. Extras at the usual rates For rurthet informa tion send for circular to Rev. JOilN MOORE, jul26m3 Principal. Dissolution N AND JKFFER \y SON COLLEGE. NEXT TERM OPENS WEDNESDAY, SEP. 18. Apply to the PRESIDENT, Canonsburg, or to the Vice President, Washington, Pa. aug2.3u4 ITrORTHY OF NOTE! TT The place to buy good BOOTS AND SHOES, ch*ap, is at the liar gain Store of G. It. AW. 08TER. They have "just received a large assortment of superior quality. Bedford, Aug. 2.3,07. w4. MONEY SAVED! The place to buy your goods and ve 25 per rent., is at the Great Bargain Store of O. R. &■ W. OSTER, who are now selling off (prior to closing, to extend and otherwise repair their Store room) their entire stor/,- at greatly reduced price*, many goods at and he loir cost. Bedford, Aug. 23,'67.wf TVTOTICE.—THE CASH SYSTEM J_X IN FASHION !—The undersigned takes this method of requesting all persous indebted to him to call and settle their accounts. This notice must be observed On and after October 1, 18(57. he will sell goods for cash and approved produce only, having been convinced, by experience, that the cash system is the best for his customers as well as himself. A. L. DEFIBAUUH. aug2.tma SOLDIERS' MONUMENT. The _ Central Committee and all the Borough and Township Executive Committees, of the "Bed ford county Soldiers' Monument Association," are requested to meet at the Court House in Bedford, on Wednesday evening of next Court week, Sep tember 4tli, at 71 o'clock The attendance of every member of the several committees is earnestly requested, as important business will be laid before fhein. aug23w2 C. X. HI'JKOK, Chairman. riMiis is TO GIVE NOTICE, That 1 on the 14th day of August. A D.. 1887. a Warrant in Bankruptcy was issued against the estate of William Spidle, of Bloody Hun, in the county of Bedford and Stateof Pennsylvania, who has been adjudged a Bankrupt on his own petition; that the payment of any debts and delivery of any property belonging to such bankrupt, to him or for his use, and the transfer of any property by him are forbidden by Law ; that a meeting of the Creditors of the said Bankrupt, to prove their Debts, and to choose one or more Assignees of his Estate, will be held at a Court of Bankruptcy, to be holden at the office of John Cessna, Esq., in Bedford. Bedford county. State of Pennsylvania, before Hastings Gebr, Register, on the 17th day of September, A. 1)., 1847. at 11 o'clock, A. M. 1 HQS. A. ROWLEY. aug23w4 U.S. Marshal. THE MISSISSIPPI!" COMPLETE 11ISTOR Y Of the New States and Territories, From the Grea". River to the Great Ocean. BV ALBERT I>. RICHARDSON'. Over 20,000 Copies Sold in One Month. Life and Adventure on Prairies. Mountains and the Pacific Coast. With over 2<)o Descriptive and Photographic Views of the Scenery, Cities, Lands. Alines, People and Curiosities of the New States and Territories. To prospective emigrants and settlers in the "Far West," this History of that vast ami fertile region will prove an invaluable assistance, supplying as it doesa want long felt of a full, authentic and reliable guide tocliniate, soil, products, means of travel, Ac. Send for Circulars and see our terms, and a full description of the work. Address, NATIONAL PUBLISHING CO., Philadelphia, Pa. [augttwl 3fob rjIIIE BEDFORD GAZETTE POWER PRESS P HINTING ESTABLISHMENT, BEDFORD, PA. MEYERS & MENGEL PROPRIETORS. Having recently made additional iin provements tf our office, we are pre pared to execute all orders for PLAIN AND FANCY .JOB PRINTING,] With dispatch aud in the most 3U P E 111 O R 3TY LE. CIRCULARS. LETTER HEADS, BILL HEADS, CHECKS. CERTIFICATES, BLANKS. DEEDS. REGISTERS, RECEIPTS, CARDS HEADINGS. ENVELOPES, SHOWBILLS, HANDBILLS. INVITATIONS, LABELS, \e.lfc. Our facilities for printing POSTERS, PROGRAMMES, &c., FOR CONCERTS AND EXHIBITIONS, ARE UNSURPASSED. "PUBLIC SALE" BILLS Printed at short notice. We can insure complete satisfaction as to time and price BY MEYERS & MENGEL. TERMS OF PUBLICATION. THK BEDFORD GAZETTE is published every Fri day morning by METERS A MENAEL, at $2 00 per annum, if paid strictly tn advance ; $2.50 if paid within six months; $3.00 if not paid within six months. All subscription accounts MUST be settled annually. No paper will be sent out of the State unless paid for is ADVANCE, and all such subscriptions will invariably be discontinued at the expiration of the time for which they are paid. All ADVERTISEMENTS for a less terra than three months TEN CENTS per line for each in ertion. Special notices one-half additional All esoluti'ns of Associations; communications of united or individual interest, and notices of.mar •iages and deaths exceeding five lines, ten cents er line. Editorial notices fifteen cents per line. AH legal Notices of every find, and Orphans'' Court and Judicial Sales, are required by lair to be published in both papers published m this place. All advertising due after first insertion. A liberal discount is made to persons advertising by the quarter, half year, or year, as follows : 3 months. 6 months. 1 year. *One square - - - $4 50 $5 00 $lO 00 Two squares - - 600 9' 00 16 00 Three squares - 8 00 12 00 -20 00 Quarter column - - 14 00 20 00 35 110 Half column - - - IS 00 2; 00 45 00 One column - - - - 30 00 45 00 80 00 ♦One square to occupy one inch of space. JOB PRINTING, of every kind, done with ueatness and dispatch. THE GAZETTE OFFICE has just been refitted with a Power Press and new type, and everything in the Printing line can be execu ted in the most artistic manner and at the lowest rates.—TERMS CASH. i w All letters should be addressd to MEYERS A MENGEL, Publishers. a lie p*4fr4 (IV.UTUc. BORIE VS. TROTT. I.cgnl Tender Xole* aixl llieir Constitu tionality. OFI.MOX Of J I'DOE SUA UN WOOD. In January, 1804, the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia had before it two eases in which the constitutionality of the act of Congress of February 20, 1862, making United States notes a legal tender, wasinvolv- j ed. In one of the cases the party had offered legal tender notes in payment of a mortgage, and the money was refus ed, and the party cited into court. ()n Saturday, February 20,1864, Judges Hare and Stroud delivered the majority opinion of the Court, -affirming that the tender of the United States notes was legal, inasmuch as Congress, under the Constitution, had the authority to pass the act of February 2f, 1862. Judge wood delivered a dissenting opin ion in which he held that Congress had no power under the Constitution to make notes a legal tender in payments of debts. The following is Judge Sharswood's | opinion in extenso: If any point may be considered as well settled it is, that the Constitution of the 1 United States is a special grant or dele gation of limited powers to the Federal government. "It has been truly said," observes C. J. Marshall in the United States vs. Fisher (2 Crancli, 212,) "that under a Constitution conferring specific powers, the power contended for must be granted or it cannot be exercised." The same thing has been affirmed by j Mr. Justice Story in Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee, (1 Wheat., 326.) "The govern ment of the United States can claim no powers which are not granted to it by theConstitutionandthepowersaetually granted, must be such as are expressly given or given by necessary implica tion." And not to multiply citations — ! on so clear a principle—again by C. J. I Marshall in M'Cullough vs. the State of I Maryland, (4 Wheat, 40o.) "Thisgov ernment is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The princi ple that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent to have required to be enforced, by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge. That principle is now universally ad mitted.'''' It follows that to sustain theconstitu tionality of an act of Congress—to deter mine that itis a law—an authority for it must be affirmatively shown. That au thority must exist in the Constitution in express words if the act must appear to be necessary and proper for carrying into execution some power or powers vested in Congress, in the government of the United States, or in some de partment or office thereof. By this rule we are now to decide, whether that clause of the act of Con gress approved February 23, 1862, enti tled "An act to authorize the issue ol United States notes and for the redemp tion or funding thereof, and for funding the floating debt of the United States," which provides that the notes issued in pursuance of that act "shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment for all debts public and private"—is oris not a law of the land. The counsel of the defendant—recog nizing that on him rested the burden of maintaining the affirmative of this is sue —claimed that the provision referr ed to was an exercise of authority vest ed in Congress under one or other ol the following clauses of the enumera tion in Section 8 of Article 1: PARAGRAPH 2.—To borrow money on the credit of the United States : PAR. 3.—TO regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and will the Indian tribes: PAR. 6. —To coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and meas ures; PAR. 18. —To make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper for car rying into execution the fore-going powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government oi the United States or in any department or office thereof. I propose to examine these clauses with such other parts of the Constitu tion as have been suppo-ed in thecourst of the argument to illustrate them. I feel some degree of confidence, not only from the well-known ability, learning and research of the counsel for the de fendant, but from my investigations, that if the act of Congress in question cannot be sustained on either of thest clauses, it cannot be sustained at all. I will begin with the last paragraph of the enumeration, because its proper construction has an important bearing on the others; PAR. 18. "To make all laws which shall be necessary and prop er for carrying into execution the fore going powers." 1 will not here revert to political and controverted grounds, nor to the arguments, by which in tin Federalist } No. 44, and elsewhere, the i objections of the enemies of the Consti tution to the swee})in<; words of this clause, were met and answered by "its , enlightened friends." I mean to take exclusively as my guide the principles, judicially settled by the Supreme Court of the United States in the leading case I of M'Cullough vs. the State of Mary land (4 Wheat., 316.) The rule estab lished in th.it case is well expressed by the reporter in the syllabus. It the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution all the means which are appropriate, and which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be ; employed to carry it into effect. Let us recur, however, to the very words of the opinion, as delivered by C. J! Mar ' shall : "We think the sound construc tion of the Constitution must allow to the National Legislature that discre tion, with respect to the means, by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which w ill ena ble that body to perform the high du ties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope ;of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plain ly adapted to the end, and which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." P. 421. This is, certainly, a very large char ter to the discretion of Congress, yet as a rule for judicial cases, 1 am willingto accept it. It is apparent however, Irom the very terms in which the prin ciple is ennuueiated, that this discre- j tion is not without limits. It is not Congress which is to be the , final judge as to whether a measure is necessary and proper for carrying into effect any of the delegated powers. Were it so, the enumeration would have been a vain and delusive mock-1 ery, and the fundamental principle j that the federal government is one merely of limited authority, an un meaning formula of words. The limits plainly set in this lan guage are these: 1. The end must he legitimate and within the scope of the , Constitution. 2. The means must be: appropriate and adapted to the end. 3. i The means must not themselves be] prohibited, but consist with the letter] and spirit of the Constitution. There is, however, another limitation ; upon the discretion of Congress in the ] choice of necessary and proper means, j It is clearly stated in M'Cullough vs. j the State of Maryland, and indeed the] principle of it may be considered to . have ruled that case. I quote again j the very words of the opinion : "The power of creating a corporation, ] though appertaining to sovereignty, is ! not like the powers of making war or levying taxes, or of regulating com merce, a great substantive and indepen dent power, which cannot be implied as incidental to other powers, or used as a means of executing them." [4 Wheat., L] 1 understand the Supreme Court in this language to lay down the simple and reasonable—l might, perhaps say, the self-evident —proposition that no one enumerated power can he inciden tal to another enumerated power. Three cases are stated as examples of substantive powers, but clearly only as examples. We have no right to say that any of (he express powers is more substantive and independent than an other. Their very expression authori tatively stamps their character. If, therefore, a power is delegated, but in terms which import a limitation or qualification, it cannot be exercised as incidental to some other power, disre garding the limitation or qualification annexed to the express grant. Indeed, j such limitation or qualification may be ! considered as a prohibition against the ! exercise of that power in any other i way, and therefore, within the limit t which the Supreme Court places upon] the discretion of Congress in the enun- ] eiation of the general principle, viz:; That Congress cannot employ a meas ure, however necessary and proper it I may be for carrying into effect some j express power, if that measure has j been prohibited. I pass now to the consideration of those grants, from which, by the aid of the last paragraph of the enumera tion, it is contended that Congress have authority to issue what this act calls "United States Notes" and to make them a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private. 1. "To regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes." Art. 1 ; j sec. 8, par. 3. It must be admitted that standards of ; value and of weights and measures are ] means very appropriate and adapted in j the regulation of commerce. But then j we have in this enumeration a clause,] which expressly grants and defines the authority to create such standards. If it ] directs of what they shall consist, Con gress cannot make another kind as incidental to the regulation of com merce. With equal plausibility might it be preten led that, for the regulation of commerce, Congress could lay duties, j imposts and excises, and pass bankrupt laws. Such measures might be very ap- j propriate and adapted to that end. Yet -urely it will not be maintained that as suming these powers as incidental, Con- , gress could disregard the rule of uni formity, which limits and qualifies the •X press delegation of them. This quali ication is, in fact, a prohibition of any luties, imports or excises, which shall lot be uniform throughout the United states—of any laws on the subject of bankruptcies which shall not, in like! manner, be uniform throughout the U iiited States. [Art. 1, see. 8, par. 14.J , I'hese cases present a perfect illustra-] don of the soundness of the limit to the discretion of Congress, prescribed >y the Supreme Court, that a substan ive power shall not be exercised as in cidental. Ido not, however, consider ihem as any more perfect than the very case before us. If the power to create i standard of value and medium of ex •hange is expressly delegated, but con fined by its terms, as we will presently see, that is, to coins—foreign ordomes ic—it is a prohibition of any other dud of money. Congress cannot, un ler the pretext of regulating commerce, .nfringe the prohibition thus laid on hem. 11. "To borrow money on the credit >f the United States."—Art. 1, Sect, 8, Par. 2. It has been argued that under this clause Congress may issue these "Uni ted States Notes,' because they are on ly acknowledgements of debt in a ne gotiable farm, and in order to give hem greater credit, make them a legal ender. That there may be constitu ionally issued to the public creditor •ertificates of the amount due, trans ferable by assignment—or bonds or BEDFORD. PA., FRIDAY MORNING, AUGUST 30. 1867. notes payable to bearer, which ran pass from hand to hand by mere delivery— Ido not deny. These are all securities, and Congress are vested expressly with j power "to provide for the punishment | of counterfeiting the securities and cur rent coin of the United States." Art. \ 1, Sect. 8, Par. 7. This language is ac curate. Securities ex vi termini are something different from money. This view is strengthened when we find the coin described in the same paragraph as ! current coin. These United States notes are not se curities for money which may l>e issued under the authority to borrow, but they are"billsof credit" —things distinct and different from securities. That there is such a distinction may beclearly show n by the judgments of the highest tribu nal which gives the law on these sub jects to all other courts. According to that tribunal, bills of credit are not cer tificates of loan—nor Treasury bonds or notes—nor ack nowledgmentsof indebt edness, all of which are mere securities but bills invested with the functions of money—just such bills as the United States notes issued in pursuance of the act of Congress in question. In Craig vs. the State of Missouri (4 Peters, 431,) C. J. Marshall, in delivering the Opinion of the court, says: "In its enlarged and literal sense the term 'bill of credit' may comprehend any instrument by which a iState en gages to pay money at a future day; thus including a certificate given for money borrowed. But the language of the ('onstitution itself, and the mis-1 chief to be prevented, which we know i from the history of our country, equal- j Iv limit the intepretation of the term. ] The word 'emit' is never employed in i describing those contracts by which a State binds itself to pay money at a fu ture day for services actually received or for money borrowed for present use; nor are instruments executed for such purposes in common language denomi nated'bills of credit.' To 'emit bills of credit'conveys to the mind the idea of issuing paper to circulate through the community for its ordinary purposes i as money, which paper is redeemable at a future day. This is the sense in which the terms have always been un-1 derstood." The definition here given was subsequently reconsidered andsus- j tained in i.riscoe vs. the Bank of Ken tucky, )Il Peters, 237.) According to thisclearand authorita- j tive exposition, what distinguishes bills ofcredit from such securities as are is- 1 sued to the public creditor, is, that the former are, and the latter are not, in-! tended to circulate as money. These j United States notes, then, are not ac knowledgments of debt nor "securities | of the United States," but "bills of credit" —in other words—"money." In- j deed, this act of Congress of 1 ebruary j 2->, 1S(2, intends to leave no doubt on | that point, for it expressly declares that i they shall be "lawful money." In con formity, then,totheprinciple,assettled by the Supreme Court in M'Cullough vs. the State of Maryland, we must turn to the money clause to ascertain wheth er Congress had authority to make them "lawful money." That body cannot, as incidental to the power to j borrow, create any kind of money,: which will not stand the test of the ex press power which is granted on that subject. j If any doubt remains as to whether, the right toemit hi lis of credit—to make paper money—can be exercised as inci dental to the borrowingpower, it ought, as it appears to me, to be entirely dissi pated by the proceedings of the Federal Convention when this clause was before them. I freely admit that the opinions expressed in that body are not conclu sive upon the interpretation of the Con stitution. That instrument is to becon-j strued like all others—by its four corn ers. But surely as C. J. Marshall re lied "on the history of our country" in limitingthe meaningoi the words 'bills j of credit,' we may resort for light to the j opinions and votes of the men who framed the Constitution, in deciding whether in the words "to borrbw num.- j ey" was intended to be included "to emit bills of credit," for that is the; precise question we have here to con-1 si der. By the ninth of the old articles of Con- j federation, Sec. it was declared that ; "the United States in Congress assem-! bled, shall have authority to borrow j money or emit bills on the credit of the | United States." In the plan of the Con stitution,as reported to the Convention, by the committee of detail, of which Mr. liutledge was ehairman-this clause was copied: "To borrow money and emit bills on the credit of the United j States." On the 17th of August, 1787, 1 in convention, Mr. Governeur Morris, of Pennsylvania, moved to strike out the words "and emit bills." There was a debate on this motion, which is j reported by Mr. Madison. It was argued by some, and Mr. Madison j himself among the number, that i the words had better remain with a provision prohibiting them from being made a legal tender. 31 r. James Wil son, of Pennsylvania, afterwards one of j the Justices of the Supreme Court of the ! United States appointed by President ! Washington, contended that it would have a most salutary influence on the credit of the United States "to remove ; the possibility of paper money f Other members whospokeconcurred with him in this view. The motion was carried, and the words stricken out by a vote of nine States to two. Mr. Madison has added in a foot note, that the vote by Virginia in the affirmative was occa sioned by his acquiescence, because he became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govern ment from the use of public notes, as far as they could be safe and proper, and would only cut oft' the pretext for a ] paper currency , and particularly for making the bill a tendereith&r for public or private debts. [5 Elliott's Dtniates, 434, 48").] I do not know how these proceedings may strike other minds, but they have convinced me that the Federal* Convention understood by "bills of credit," not securities—certifi cates of loan or indebtedness —Treasury notes—or Exchequer bills—but just 1 what Chief Justice Marshall afterwards I defined them to be,"paper money," and meant to deny to Congress the power to make such money. Luther Martin, in his address to the Maryland Legislature in justification of his course in retiring from the Federal Convention, hasalsogivenabrief sketch of this interesting debate, which corres ponds in the main with that of Mr. Mad ison. He declared in the most emphatic manner that "a majority of the Conve ntion being willing to risk any political evil rather than ad mit the idea of apope/' emission in any possible case, refused to ; trust this authority to the Federal Con ; vention, p. 57.] lie afterward informs the Legislatureas indicative, of the tem- I per of the body, from which he had with drawn, that as the Constitution "was re ported by the committee of detail, the ! States were only prohibited from eniit ] ting them (bills of credit) without the ! consent of (on fpress; but the Convention were so smitten with the paper money dread , that they insisted that the prohi bition shouldbeabsolute." "It was my opinion sir," he proceeds to say, "that the States ought not to be totally de prived of the right to emit bils of cred it, and that as we had not given an au thority to the general government for that purpose, it was the mo. e necessary to retain it ir. the States." The members of the Federal Conven tion truly represented the views and feelings of the people of the States, by whom they had been chosen. No one acquainted with the history of the Rev olution can he surprised at the extreme jealousy entertained of investing either the Federal or State government or even both, by joint action with any dis cretion on this subject. It is plain that the men who framed the Constitution— the men who ratified it in the State con ventions'—the great mass of their con stituents—meant nothing less than to exclude, forever, in any possible case— (Mr. Martin)— the possibility of paper money —(Mr. Wilson.) The public faith again and again solemnly pledged, for the redemption of the continental hills' of credit, had been shamefully violated. The tender laws of the States, enacted at the urgent solicitation of Congress for the purpose of sustaining their credit, ] had utterly failed. The amount ofpri- j vate wrong thereby inflicted on individ-' ualsand families was incalculable. Con gress in a circular address in 1771) —after ! promising solemnly that the amount of the bills should on no account exceed $200,0011,(K)0 —indignantly repelled the ideathat there could lie any violation of the public faith, or that there did not exist ample funds to redeem them. The emission, however very soon after swelled t05379,000,000,and having ceas-! Ed to circulate, quietly died in the hands I of its possessors. [3 Story on the Const. , 223-224. ] No financiering was found so ! easy—so attractive—and at the same] time so delusive and destructive as that of resorting to paper money. "Who," said a member of the Revolutionary Congress in debate, "will consent to load his constituents with taxes, when j we can send to our printer and get a wagon load of money, and pay for the ■ whole with aquireof paper?" | Breek's History of Continental Money, p. 13.] Well said Mr. Read, of Delaware, in the Federal Convention, that such a power would stamp the Constitution with "the mark of the beast in Revela tions;" and Mr. Langdon, of New 1 iainpshire, only expressed the feolii gs of the entire country when he declared that he would rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "and emit bills." It requires but a slight knowledge of the times to conclude that if these three words had been re- ] taiiied, or had it been imagined that, i though stricken out, as by comparing the new with the old system every- j body could see that they were, they still ! lurked in the instrument as incidental j to some other power, the Federal Con stitution would never have been rati- , tied by nine States. In the discussion] and publications, which followed on the promulgation of the plan, before] proceeding to vote on it in the State Convention as well as in the debates of those bodies, so far as they have been ] preserved and handed down to us, though every hole and corner ot the instrument was ransacked to find ob jections, 1 am not aware that it was] ever suggested that it might possibly] contain so odious and unpopular it power. The voice of the instrument j itself appeared sufficiently marked and unmistakable. 111. I'come now to consider the re maining alause, which has been relied on as thesouree of authority to pass the act in question. "To coin money, reg ulate the value thereof and of foreign coin and fix the standard of weights and measures." (Art. 1, see. 8, par..).) j It is evident not merely from the words, but from their juxtaposition with the clause for fixing a standard of weights and measures, that the Constitution in tends that the money of the United States shall he not merely a medium of exchange but a standard of value. — j Uniformity and stability were the ends j in view, and for this reason those pow ers were vested exclusively in the Fed eral goverment. Here and here alone, ; and not as a mere incident to some j thing else, are we to look for whatever authority Congress possesses over the subject of money. In the Federalist, No. 42, this is taken for granted. "All that need be remarked on the power to coin money, regulate the value there of and of foreign coin is, that by pro viding for this last case, the Constitu tion has supplied a material omission in the articles of confederation. The authority of the existing Congress is re strained to the regulation of coin struck by their own authority or that of respec tive States. It must be seen at once that the proponed uniformity in the value of the current coin might be destroyed by sub jecting that of foreign coin to the differ ent regulations of the different States." Judge Story thought so, for he says: "The power to coin money is one of the ordinary prerogatives of sovereignty, and is almost universally exercised in order to preserve a proper circulation of qood coin of a known value in the home market," (3 Story on the Const., 17). But the Supreme Court of the; United States have not left this to in- i ference, but have distinctly declared the same opinion in the United States vs. Marigold (9 Howard, o(X)), in which ] an act of Congress punishing the offense ( of importing spurious coin was held to be constitutional on the ground that ' the provisions or the act appertained, ; to use the very words of the opinion, Ito the execution of an important | trust on the part of the government, ; namely, the trust and the duty of cre ating and maintaining a uniform and ] pure metallic standard of value through out the Union. The power of coining j money and of regulating its value, was delegated to Congress by the Constitu tion for the very purpose, as assigned i by the framer.s of that instrument, of creating and preserving the uniformity and purity of such a standard of value. The word coin is one of well settled meaning. The primary sense of the noun , according to Dr. Webster, is "the die used for stamping money," and the undisputed signification of the verb, according to most, if not all the lexi cographers, is "to stamp metal and eon ] vert it into coin." In Wharton's Law Lexicon (adverbum) it issaid: "Strict ly speaking, coin differs from money as the species differs from the genus.— , Money is any matter, whether metal, paper, beads, shells, Ac., which has currency as a medium in commerce.— j Coin isa particular species always made ! of metal aud struck according to a cer- VOL. 62.—WHOLE No. 5,407. tain process called coining." It was urged at the bar—l do not know wheth er seriously or not —that printing is | stamping, and these notes might, : therefore, literally he said to be coined. No such use of the word in any author i has been shown. We may say, figu ratively, to coin a story, meaning to | invent one, but never to coin the book [in which it is printed. The story is a fiction —the coinage of the brain —the ( book a icality. Surely, however, no 1 one will contend in earnest that if a sufficient number of clerks had been employed, and these notes had all been written with the hand, they would j have been unconstitutional, but that printing makes them valid. To state the case thus is to reduce the argument to an absurdity. It may seem like laboring unnecessa rily a very plain proposition, but I will hazard some further illustrations, j The notes is question draw a plain ! distinction on their face between them ! selves and coins. They promise to pay dollars. Wlujt is a dollar* To a sim ilar question—what is a pound? Sir Robert Peel answered: "A pound is a definite quantity of gold with a mark i upon it to determine its weight and I fineness." Many pages have been written to controvert this definition I and To prove that a pound is a mere abstraction —something like a math ematical point without length, breadth or thickness. Rut common sense, 1 think, vindicates Sir Robert Peel. A standard measure must be some actual length or capacity—a standard weight some actual weight. How else can other weights and measures be compar ed with it? This is the object of a standard. So a standard of value most be some actual value. I would say, drawing the definition from thestatute book—l know not where else to look for it —a dollar is a silver coin, weigh ing four hundred and twelve and one half grains, of gold coin, weighing twenty-five and four-fifth grains, of nine tenths pure to one tenth aHoy of each metal. Those notes then promise to pay coins. To say that they are themselves coins is to make the prom ise and performance identical. As they do not state on their face when they are to be paid,in law,if issued by an individual or corporation, they would be payable on demand. Whit lock vs. Underwood (fi B. A C., 187,) Story on notes par., 211. Payable in what? In themselves, if they are coins or dollars. They are promises to pay on demand. A promise to pay nia,\ represent coin and circulate as such.— It is properly designated as currency, and is one of many modes by which the use of an expensive standard may be snared by thesuhstitution,as a me dium of exchange, of public or private credit. It is safe and convenient as well as economical, as long as it truly represents the standard, by being im mediately convertible into coin. But in its very nature it is not coin. Its value or power of purchasingothercom modities depends as well upon the con fidence of the issuers to redeem it as upon the amount issued. Coin, on tin other hand, possesses present, actual and intrinsic value. If you obliterated from thepound weight the public mark, which attests its conformity to the standard, it still weighs the same as be fore. So you may erase the image from the coin, yet its value remains. Blot out, however, the superscription from these pieces of paper and nothing re mains—they are w irthless. Thestamp on the coin is really nothing but a cer tificate of the weight and fineness of that piece of metal. Government guarantees nothing hut this—makes no contract to deliver corn, wool, or leather in exchange for it. The power of regulating its value can only extend to declaring that in law a certain num ber of one coin shall be deemed the equivalent of another of a different de nomination in contracts and o her transaction. In the market unequal values cannot be made equal by law. Congress has no power to enact how many bushels of wheat an eagle shall exchange for, and if they had and should make the experiment, the act, j like all attempts by government to change the laws, would be futile. The legislation of Congress upon this j subject recognizes the difference be- j tween these United States notes and j coin, and that they are not of equal i value. That act before us (February 25,18(52) j requires duties on imports, and the in-1 terest of the public debt to be paid in coin ; and provides that the notes "shall ' be received the same as coin at their par value, in payment for any loans that may hereafter be sold or negotiated by i the' Secretary of the Treasury." So by j the act of March 17, 18(52, the Secretary i of the Treasury is authorized to pur-, chase coin with'them at such rates and j upon such terms as he may deem most ! advantageous to the public interest. — j And the act of March il, 18GB, prohibits the loan of currency or money on the security of gold or silver coins, exceed ing in amount the par value of the coin pledged or deposited as security. By the first of these acts, coin is treated as ; the standard; by the last, paper. The! one speaks of the par valueof the notes, the other of the par valueof the coins., If the word coin has any more gen eral or figurative sense in the phrase, lo J 1 coin money, than that I have assigned ; to it, it must be held to have the same i in other pa> ts of the article* In for eign coin will be included foreign paper j ' money, and Congress may regulate its value and make it a legal tender. They may thus treat notes of the Bank of England and France, Austrian and! ; Russian government money; but not State bank notes. Congress has no power ! of regulating the value of money except foreign coins and money coined by its own authority. If to coin money mean \ to stanqrpaper, then the clause which forbids the States "to emit bills of cred it" was unnecessary; the prohibition "to coin money" included it. The terms of that very prohibition show that in the minds of the makers of the Constitution, "to coin money" and to 'emit bills of credit," were two entirely distinct and different things. In short, in whatever point of view it is regard ; ed, it seems to me that the position that this clause authorizes or permits any other but metallic money is untenable. The restriction on the States illustrates and confirm the opinion which I have ; expressed upon the proper construct ion of the paragraph before us. "No State shall coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any law impairing the obligations of con tracts." Art. I, sect. 10. The whole power over contracts resided in the Staies before the ratification of the Fed eral Constitution. This section admits it and leaves it there, subject only to two restrictions—both having the sameend 1 in view—the inviolability of contracts. • Inasmuch as the States cannot coin, and fhe Ftderal Government alone can, and inasmuch as the States cannot untke anytiung but gold and silver a tender in payments of debts, it follows that gold or silver coins, foreign or do mestic as regulated by t ongress, consti tutei the only lawful money. This was evidently Mr. Webster's opinion in tfiat able speech on the Specie Circu lar, which was cited at the bar, and in which he declared that ' l gold andti/rcr, at rates fixed by Congress, constitute the legal standard value in this coun try, and that neither Congress nor any State has authority to establish any other standard, or to displace this." And still more emphatically: "Most unquestionably thereisaml there can be no legal tender in this country under the authority of this govern ment or any other, but gold anu silver. This is a constitutional principle, per fectly plain and of the very highest importance. The States are expressly prohibited from making anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, and although no such express prohibition is applied to Congress, yet as Congress has no power granted to it, but to coin money and to .egulate the value thereof, it clearly has no power to auhstitute paper or anything else for coin us a tender. Theconstitulional ten der is the thing to be preserved and it ought to be preserved sacredly and un der all circumstances." |I Webster's works, 271, 280.J I must confess that upon a question of this magnitude— amid the conflict of opinion by which I am surrounded —my mind has rested with confidence and satisfaction upon this clear and decided conclusion o< a great intellect. Mr. Webster's fame rests mainly on his eminence as a con stitutional lawyer. The Constitution had been the study of his life—the sub ject of most of his professional and po litical efforts. Ile belonged to no school of strict construction, but on all occa sions was found earnestly contending for the broadest charter to the Federal Government. Theopinions he ex press ed in his seat in the Senate of the United States under the sanction of his official oath, are entitled to be received as delib erate and well considered. With Mr. Webster, I regaided those provisions of the Constitution upon the subject i f contracts and tenders as "of the very highest importance," and to "be preserved sacretlly under al Ici rcu m stances." They rest upon sanctions, which ought to be considered as of the most inviolable solemnity, at all times and in all emergencies. The true strength ofa government-the best foun dation on which can rest the confidence and affection of its people—is the secur ity which it guarantees to property. This depends in this country upon those constitutional provisions, which abso lutely protect under the -Egis of the Courts of Justice, alike the daily ean - ings of the poor and the accumulated earnings of the rich man, not only from fraud and violence, but from the gov ernment itself, except in the ibrm of open and equal taxation.' It has been strongly urged upon us that Congress has the power of debasing the coin, either in weight or fineness, without changing the denomination or legal value. What, it has been asked, is thedifference between that and issuing paper money, even though that paper should beat the time depreciated below the value of coin? 1 answer, that be cause Congress may possibly accomplish a certain end by constitutional means, it does not follow that the same object can be attained by means which are not con stitutional. Though, by tlie process of debasing the njetaincsuimmm congress may, perhaps, reduce alt debts, public ami private, fifty per cent., it does not follow tiiat they can enact directly that the man who owes one hundred dollars toanother,shall bequit upon the tender of fifty. We apply no such principle to other eases. Because under legal power a man may dispose of an estate by will, we do not bold that he can do the same in any other way than that directed or prescribed. But considering it merely as an argu ment of tiic intention of the trainers ot the Constitution, it appears to mo equally inconclusive. There are very important differences between debasing the coin and issuing paper money, though their practical results may in some respects be similar. It may well have been intended to leave to Congress discretion as to the one, but to deny to either branch o the government, Slate or Federal, discretion as to the other. I. Thedebasing of the coin as afinan cial measure for the purpose of dischar ging the Public Debt would be an open, gross and palpable breach ot faith, scarcely possible in the present age ot the world. Changes, however, for the mere purpose of regulating thevalueot thecurrency, may be occasionally neces sary. "Arbitrary governments," says Albert Gallatin, "liaveat various times, in order to defraud their creditors, de based the coin whilst, they preserved its denomination, and thus subverted the standard of value, by which the pay ment of public and private debt and the performance of contracts ought to have icon regulated. This flagrant mode of violating public faith has been long pro scribed by public opinion. Govern ments have, in modern times.substitu ted for the same purpose, issues of paper money gradually increasing in amount and decreasing in value. It was to guard against these evils, that the provisions in the Constitution on that subject w ere introduced." [Considerations on the Currency, p. 72.] It is true that the coin has been de based ill ourown timesand country but never with a view to defraud either pub licor private creditors. When tin-coin age of the United States was first regu lated, in 17115, a double standard, both of gold and silver, was adopted, and the proportion of these two metals fixed at one to fifteen, which was then about their true relation in the market. But though tlie relation between gold and silver is certainly more steady than that between any two other commod ities, at least within short peri ods of time yet it is not immutable. Accordingly; about the year 1821, a change was observed to have occurred. An ounce of gold instead of being worth only fifteen ouucesof silver, was really exchangeable for about sixteen ounces. Of course no otic would pay a debt with sixteen ounces of silver, when he could do so with fifteen. The consequence was that the gold coins disappeared entirely from circulation, in obedience to the invariable law' that the metal legally undervalued is al ways expelied. ' Silver became practi cally the only standard. The act of June 25,18:14, commonly called the gold bill, undertook to restore the true rela tion. To do this, either the gold coin i must lie debased or the silver enhanced, j The latter course would have been fraught with more injustice and mis ' chief than the former. Though the true policy may have been to let things alone, or to have established as the on ly legal, what had practically become t he actual standard, yet many pure and | eminent statesmen were then and still are wedded to a different policy. Sub sequently, by the act of January 18, j 18.57, the weight and standard of the 1 coin of both metals wereslightly chang l ed, with no design but to maintain, if possible, a currency of both gold and silver. Silver, however, being now un dervalued, was banished from ctrcula-