Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1837-01-24
@peg@M OF ElB, WgD9TaRa

appearance of argument, | think might be expected
in its favor. But what is there upon which 10 found
such an implied power in the Secretary Of the Trca-
sury2 Is there a syllable in the whole law which
countenances any such idea for single moment 2
There clearly is not. The law intended TO
provide, and does PROVIDE in what sorts Of money
or other means Of payment those who owe debts to
the Government shall.pay those debts.
IT enumerates four kinds of money other means
Of payment; and can any thing be palmer than that
he who has to pay may have his choice out Of all
four All being equally lawful, the choice is with
The payer, aud not with the receiver. This would
seem TO be too plain either TO be argued to be de-
Med. Other laws ofihe United States have made
both gold and silver coins n tender in the payment
ofp,lvate debts. Did any man ever imagine that
in that the choice between the coins to be ten
dered was 10 lie with the party receiving! No one
could ever be guilty of such an absurdiy. And I'M
less there be something in the law of lSlG itself,
which either expressly, by reasonable Inference,
conlers similar power the Secretary of the rea-
sury in regard to public paymens,i there, in the ma
ture Of things any difference between the cases =!
New there is nothing either in the law of 1916, or
any other law, which conrrs any such power on the
Secretary of the treasury, either directly indirect.
ly, or which suggests, or nnates, any ground upon
which such power might be implied. Indeed the
statement oithe argument seems To me enough TO
conlute it. 1t makes the law of 1916 not rule,
but the dissolution Of all rule not law but the alb
rogation Of all existing laws According to the ar
gument, the Secretary ofthe Treasury had authority
moi only 10 refuse inc receipt OF treasury notes,
which had been issued upon the faith OF statutes
pressly making them receivable for debts and duties,
and notes Of the Bunk Of the United States, which
were also made receivable by the law creating the
bank, but refuse also foreign coins, and the coin
age ofour own Mint putting thus the legislation OF
Congress for five and twenty years at the unresran-
ed and absolute discretion ofthe Secretary of the
Treasury. 1t appears 10 me quite impossible that
any gentleman, on reflection, can undertake TO sup
port such construction.
But the gentleman rel es on supposed practice
TO maintain his Interpretation Of the law. What
practice! Has any Secretary refused to re-
ceive the notes Of specie paying banks either at the
custom-honse or the land Offices, for a single hour
Never. Has any Secretary presumed to strike for
eign coin, or Treasury notes. or our own com out OF
the list Of receivables Such an idea certainly
never entered into the head Of any Secretary. The
gentleman argues that the Treasury has made dis
ordinations; but what determinations | suppose
the whole truth to be SIMPLY this that, admitting at
all times the right Of the party paying pay in notes
Of specc-payng banks, the collectors and receivers
have not been held bound 10 receive notes OF distant
banks ofwhch they knew nothing, and could not
Judge, therefore, whether their notes came within the
law. Those collectors and receivers were bound
to receive the bills of spece-paying banks but as
that duty arose from the fact that the notes rendered
the notes Of spece-payng banks, that fact, if
not notorious already known to them, must be
made known, with reasonable certainty, before the
duty to receive them became imperative. l sup.
pose there may have been Treasury orders, rcgula-
ting the conduct of collectors and receivers in this
particular. Any orders which went further than
this would go beyond the law.
The honorable member quotes one of the bye
laws of the late Bank Of the United States but what
has that to do with the question Does the hon.
member think that the bye-laws of the late bank
were laws to The People ofthe United States The
bank under no obligation to receive any notes
on dcposi,e, except its own. II might, therefore
make lust such an arrangement with the Treasury
as il saw fl, fit saw fit TO make any. But neither
the Treasury the Bank, nor both together could
do away with the written letter Of an act of Com
gross nor did either undertake to do so.
But Sir, what have been the gcnleman's own
opinions on this subject heretofore? Has he always
been Of opinion that the Secretary enjoyed this
power of selection, as he now calls it, under the Law
( Of 1876? Has he heretofore looked upon the vari-
Gus provisions Of that law only as so many move
able and shifting parts to be thrown into gear auo
Of gear by The touch of theS ecrctarys hand
Certainly, Sir, he has not thought so; certainly he
/ has not thought SO; certainly he has looked upor
| that law as fixed, definite, and beyond Executive
power, clearly as Other laws; as a statute, TO be
repealed or modified only by another statute. NJ
longer ago than the 23d day Of last April, the hon
Orabe member introduced resolution INTO the Sen
etc in the following words
/ "Resolued, That, from aud after the - day of -
! in the wear 1885, nothing but gold and silver COR
ought TO be received in payment for public lands
| and that the Committee on Public Lands be in-
sructed to report n bill accordingly"
And now, Sir, l ask why the honorable member
moved here for bill and law, If the whole matte
was, in his opinion, within the power Of the Secreta
| ry Of the Treasury!
The Senate did not adopt this resolution. A da,
or two after It's introduction, when little dis
oussion had been had upon it, a motion 10 lay on tn
table prevailed hardly opposed, ] think, except b.
the aentleman's own vote. A few weeks af eI thi
disposition had been made of this resolution, tn
session came to a close, aud seven days after tn
close Of the session. the Treasury order made its ap
pearance.
But this is not all. There is higher authority tina,
even that OF the honorable member. Looking to tn
expiration Of the charter of the Bank of the Untc
States, the President, in his annual message in De
cemher last, SAID il was incumbent on Congress Il
discontinue, by law the receipt Of the bills Of tina
, bank in payment Of the public revenue Now, a
the charter was to expire on The Sd Of March, Their
was nothing TO make its bills receivable after tina
pc iod except the law Of 1916. To strike the pro
vision respecting notes Of the bank out Of that law
another law was indeed necessary according 10 m
understanding but do not conceive ho II SHOULD
be thought necessary upon the construction OF III,
honorable member Both Houses being of opinion
, however, thai the thing could not be done wi,hou
law, AN act was passed for that purpose, and wa
approved by the president. Here, them sir. is III,
gcntleman's own authority, the authority ofthe Pres
Geni, and the authority OF both Houses ofCongress
for saving that nothing contained in the law Of 1871
can be thrust out oft by any other power than tn,
power of a subsequent statute. am therefore, o
opinion that the Treasury order Of the lth q Jul,
is against the plain words and meaning Of the law 0
1916; against tho whole practise cfthe Government
under that law against the honorable gentleman,
own opinion as expressed in his resolution of III,
Esd Of April: and not reconc.lable with the neces
siiy which supposed TO exist for The passage o
the aci of last session.
On this occasion have heard cf no attempt Il
Justify the order on the ground ofany other law o.
act, but the act Of 1916. When the order was pub
ished, however, il was accompanied with an expo
sition apparently half official, which looked In,
land laws as the Sccretary's source of power, anc
which took no notice at all Of tue law Of 1916. III,
land law referred to the act 1880; but it turns
out upon examination, that ihe.e IS nothing at an in
hat law 10 support lhe ORDER or give u any couno-
nance whatever. Tho only clause nii which coul,
be supposed 10 have The slightest ference to IN.