Vandalia Whig and Illinois intelligencer. [volume] (Vandalia, Ill.) 1832-183?, 1834-01-08
imous expression to secure the election of
A. w. SNYDER,
JOSEPH GREEN,
WILLIAM ORR,
MOSES SHORT.
ALFRED COWLES,
j, A. BLAC XIV ELL,
JNO. MIDDLECOFF,
ROBERT HUGHES,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.

= SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
WILLIAM INN, Us. STATE BANK OF ILLINOIS
Opinion O the court by justice LOCKWOOD
his is an acton OF debt brought on a seaivo
mole, executed by VIM. Linn 10 the plaintiff.
below. The defendant IN the court below
plead that the writing obligatory was sealed
and delivered by hun to The plaintiffs for ano
IN consideration. Of bills issued and emitted
by the plaintiffs under and by virtue of an
act OF the legislature of the state of Illinois,
Ientitied "An act establishing the State Bank
lot illinois," ana that the emitting and lssu-
ing said bills 10y said bank, under and by
authority OF said act, is violation ofthe 10Th
section OF the Isl article of the constitution
Iol the United States, which iorbids "A state
to emit bills OF ''credit." To this plea The
plaintiffs below demanded and Judgment was
gwen Iii The circuit court IN favor OF the
aanh 10 reverse this judgment, the de-
fcndant below has brought writ of error 10
this court.
The main question presented by this case
Tor the consideration OF the court, is whether
The act establishing The State Bauk, 50 tar
as sad act authorized the issuing of the bank
bits, which formed the consideration of the
seated note sued on, is a violation of the
constitution ui the Cnied States? To sup-
port the pasitian that the issuing the bank
bhis men / ned In lhe plea, IS IA violation OF
the CONSTITUTION ol ,he United states, The
counsel Tor the pidlnun cIted the case, decI-
ded 10 the supreme court OF the United States,
% Crdig and others, DS the state OF Missouri.
4 refers Iepor,s, 40.
his court secognlze the correctness OF
The doctrine, that the Supreme court OF the
Uniled States ls the proper and constitutional
power to decide and finally to determine All
suits, where Is drawn IN question ''ihe valid
ny OIL a Statute OF, or an authority exercised
dndef ANY state, on the ground OF their being
repuSnant to the constitution, treaties or laws
OF The United states, and the decision Is ii.
favor OF such their valldliy.'
lhe decision OF the demurrer In the court
GeioW, necessarily drew INTO question the
validity OF the statute establishing the state
Bank OF Illinois, and that decision being IN
favor OF It's validity, brings this cause within
the doctrine above acknuw iedged. And al
though the question Involved III this case, Is
vi Immense Importance tn the people oi this
state, and GUects interests OF great magni-
tude, yet the DUTY that dovolyes On this courl
is a very PLAIN one. Ii Is simply to ascer-
tain what the supreme court oi the United
otaies have decided, Ill an analogous case,
and then decide IN accordance with thai
court. Hneie he supreme court OF the u
States nave decided, mat state law violates
the constitution OF the u. states, the JUDGES
OF The respective states nave no right to over
rule or itnPusn sucn decision. state judges
are sworn 10 support The constitution vi the
Unlted states, ana that instrument III lis 9th
article declares, that 9 i his consultation and
the laws ri The United states which shall he
niade IN pursuance thereof, aud an treaties
made, OF which shall DC made under The au-
thvfity III the United states, shall be the su
preine law et the land, and the Judges in ev-
cry slate shall be bound thereby; any thing
lii The constitution or iaUs of any state 10
The contrary Notwithstanding )"
AS then this court Is Bound to conform its
decisions, on questions relative to the uncon-
Isututlonailty Ut state laws, to the decisions
OF the supreme judicial tribunal OF the na-
ton, II becomes necessary TO ascertain iiai
that court have decided IN the case OF Craig.
and others, Us. the state OF Missouri?
Chief justice Marshall, who delivers the
Ioplnion OF the majority Of the court, invesu
gates the quest'ca, ''H hat is bill OF credit
and "W hat did the constitution mean TO tor
bId?'' 10 his usual lucid and forciDle manner
lie says that u bill OF credit, SIN It's enlarged
and perhaps literal sense, may comprehend
any instrument, by which Il state engages L
Ipay money at IA future day; thus including
"a certificate given for money borrowed. Blu
the language OF the Constitution Itseii, u tht
mischief to lie prevented, winch we know
| from The history III our country equally limi
| the Interpretation OF the terms. The wore
I''enlt" Is never employed indescrlbng thos,
contracts, by which ii state binds Itself I,
pay money at a future day for services actu
ally received, or for money borrowed for pre-
sent use; nor are instruments executed 10
such purposes, IN common language, demon
mated ''blls oil credit To "emit bills o
credit" conveys 10 the mind the idea of is
suing paper intended 10 circulate through tn,
community, for lis ordinary purposes as mo
Eney, winch paper Is redeemable at a futur'
day. This Is the sense in which the terms
have been always understood.
cat very early period OF our colonial his
tory, the attempt to supply the want OF thu
precious metals by paper medium was mad,
TO considerable extent; and the bills emit
ted for this purpose have been frequently dc
4