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 <r copartner-
SHIP. —We, the undersigned, having done
business under the name and firm of Stover A II ol
singer, hereby give notice that said firm has this
day been dissolved by mutual consent.
STOVER A HOLSINGER.
tj?* The notes and books of said firm will be
left in the hands of C. R. Stover for collection, at
their old stand.
Woodberry, May 27, 1567
The business will be conducted under the nainc
and "firm of C. It. Stover it Co. Thankful for past
favors, we would respectfully ask the continuance
of the same for the future. We invite the public
to call and examine our stock of GOODS, as we
shall, as before, keep a general assortment of all
kinds of goods usually kept in a country store.
junTui.'i C. It. STOVEIt A CO.
S.A on PER HOUR realized by our
— agents. For particulars enclose stamp
and address Kei-hart, Crider A Bro., York, Pa.
\\ r ASi 11 NOT* >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-