Vandalia Whig and Illinois intelligencer. [volume] (Vandalia, Ill.) 1832-183?, 1834-01-08


: them, the putting them into circulation,
which is the actof emission; the act that is
i forbidden in the constitution. The conside
ration of this note is the emission of bills OF
credit by the state. The very act which
constitutes the consideration is the very act
of emitting bills of credit, In the mode pre-
iiscSibed by the law of Missouri, which act is
Inrohib;t,,d by the constitution OF the United
States. The c,h,iefjustice after citing nnm-
her Of decisions r., sn,,w that bonds and notes
given on Illegal considiera'' ''hs' were Vold'
says that majority of the cou' ieei con-
strained to say that the consideration. o''
which the note IN this case, the case OF Craig
in the state of Missouri, is against the high
est law of the land, and that the note itself
is entirely void
Having thus ascertained what the superior
court of the u States have decided in the
case referred to, the question here arises
Is there such difference between the certifi-
Gates issued by the loan office in Missouri
and the bills issued by the bank established
in this state as to exempt these bills from
being considered bills of credit within the
meaning of the constitution of the United
States?
A concise review ola few of the provisions
OF the act establishing the state bank of H.
linois, will show a very close and striking
resemblance. The bank was to be owned
by the state. The cashiers were 10 give
bond with security, for the use of the state.
for the faithful discharge of the duties OF
their office. The banks were TO issue notes
|or bills to the amount of 100000 in bills,
not exceeding $40 nor less than ST & heirI
form is prescribed They were to bear tw
per cent interest and contain promise Il
pay The bills thus to be issued were 20 be
received at all times for debts due the state,
or to any county or tosthe bank.
The 100000 Of bills, as soon as they
could be prepared for 'emission" were
to be loaned to citizens Of the State, and
the loans were to be made in the different
counties according to population. All
the revenues, lands, town lots, funds and
other property of the state were ''pledg
ed'' for the redemption of the bills and
the Legislature sseledgc" themselves, at
the expiration of ten years from the pas
sage of the act, to redeem all the bills to
be issued, by virtue Of the act, in gold hna
silver. The Bank was also required 10
withdraw from circulation annually one
tenth part of the whole amount Of the
bills issued.
From this statement Of the prominent
features fthe Bank law, i clearly appears
that our Bank and the MossouIi loan Of.
fee, although called by different names.
we're similar in their objects and both
were established for the purpose of emit
ting paper currency to circulate as money
in the respective States. The issuing OF
these bills, is, according to the decision,
of the Supreme Court Of the U. States,
emitting "biils of credit" and violation
|of the Constitution Of the u. States. II
is also to be remembered in relation to
the act establishing our State Bank that
it is obnoxious 10 the charge Of attempt
ing to force the bills Of the bank into cir
culation by staying creditors from collect
ing their debts for three years, unles.
they would receive these bills in pay
ment.
IT results from this review Of the pro
visions of the Bank law, that it contains
Objectionable features not found in the
Missouri loan office law and that there car
nc no doubt if this case were presented t
the Supreme Court of the U. States. thai
that Court would pronounce that the bills
issued ny the State Bank Of Illinois, were
spills of credit" and that the sealed note
on which this action was brought was Civ
en- foI an illegal consideration and there
fore null and void. Such being the opu
ion of this Court we are compelled to say
that the Judgment Of the Circuit Cour
must be revised.
As the decision now given conflicts viii
the decision Of this Court, in the case g
Snyder against the President and Direc
tors of the State Bank Of Illinois, Brecs
Repts. p. 1872, il is proper to notice tn
circumstances under which that dccisioi
. was made. This Court there says 'Iha
the debtors of the Bank cannot raise th
objection that the charter of the Bank
a violation Of the Constitution. Ate
having borrowed the paper of the instltu
ton. Doth public policy and common hoi
csty require. that the borrowers shout
repay it, 1t is therefore, unnecessary t
decide whether the incorporation of tn
bank was a violation Of the Constitutio
or not.
This decision was made in 1926, belor