Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1837-01-20

from MISSOURI. tnuS places MS Oruer, as tDaL
friend is with the Secretarys own ground
For my part think them both jus, halfrgh,;
that is to say, both, in my humble Judge.
ment, are just so far right as they dIstrust
and disclalm the reasoning Of each other.
Let me state, sir, as | understand it, the
honorable members argument 1t is, that
The law Of 1916 gives HE Secretary Sc
lection: that it provides four different
modes, or medic, Of payments; that the
Secretary is TO collect the revenue 10 one.
or several, or all these modes. or media, at
his discretion that all are in the dl-iunc.
tive, as think he expressed 1t; and that
he resolution, or law, is not mandatory or
conclusive IN favor Of any one. According
to the honorable member therefore. if the
Secretary had chosen to say that our own
eagles and our own dollars should no lon
ger be receivable, whether for customs,
taxes, or public lands, he had 4 clear righ,
to say so, and to stop their reception.
Before n construction of so extraordinary
a character be fixed on the law Of 1916,
something like the appearance ofargument
I think, might be expected in It's favor
But what is there upon which TO found such
an implied power in the Secretary Of the
Treasury Is there syllable IN the whole
law which cOunlenances any such idea tor
a single moment? There clearly is not
The law was intended to provide, and does
provide, on what sorts Of money or other
means OF payment those vino owe debts to
the Government shall pay those debts.
| IL enumerates four kinds of money or
! other means Of payment: and can any thing
be palmer than that he who has to pay
may have his choice ont Of all four? All
being equally lawful, the choice is with the
| prayer. and not with the receiver. This
would seem to be too plain either to be
| argued or to be denied. Other laws Of
| the United States have made both gold
| and silver coins q tender IN the payment
ofprivale debts. Did any man ever mag
inc that in that case the choice between
the coins to be rendered was to lie will,
he party receiving? No one could ever
oe guilty of such an absurdly. And un-
! less there be something in the law of 1916
itself, which either expressly, or by rea
sonabe Inference, coners similar power
on the secretary Of the Treasury in regard
TO public payments, is there in Ike nature
of things, any difference between The cases;
Now, there is nothing, either in the law OF
1916, or any other law, which confers any
such power on the Secretary of the Treas
ury, either directly or indirectly, or which
suggests, or in,ima,es. any ground upor
which such power might be implied. In
deed the statement Of he argument seem:
to me enough TO coniute 1t, 1t makes the
law Of 1916 not rule, but the dissolution
of all rule; not a law, but the obrogallon .
all existing laws. According To the argu
ment, the Secretary Of the Treasury hat
authority, not only to refuse the receipt o
Treasury notes, which had been issuet
upon the ialth of statues expressly making
them receivable tor debts aud duties. ant
duties, aud notes of the Back oflhe Unit et
States, which were also made receivabl,
by the law creating the bark, but to re
fuse also foreign COINS, aud the coinage o
on! own Mint; putting thus tie leg Islatlol
OF Congress for five'and;wenly years a
the unrestrained and absolute discretion
of the Secretary Of the Treasury. 1t ap
peas to me quite impossible that any gen
tleman, on reflection, can undertake l.
support such q construction.
But the gentleman relies on suppose
practice to maintain his Interpretation @
the law, What practice: Has any Sec
rotary ever refused to receive the notes O
| specie paying banks, either at the Gust ON
house or the land Offices, for a single hour
Never. Has any Secretary presumed {
strike foreign coin, or Treasury notes, o
our own com out of the list of receivables
Such an idea certainly never entered int
the head ofuny Secretary. The gentlema
argues that the Treasury has made dis
examinations; hut what determinations
suppose the whole truth TO be simply this
that, admitting at all times the right of til
party paying to pay in notes of specie.pay
ing banks, the collectors and receivers hav
not been he'd bound to receive notes OF dl
tant banks Of which they knew nothing
and could not Judge, therefore, whethe
their notes came within the law. Thos
collectors and receivers were bound to r,
celve the bills OF specle-p paying banks; bu
as that duty arose from the fact that tn
notes rendered were the notes of specie
paying banks, that fact, if not notorious {
already known TO them, must be mad
kuoWb, WIN rcusohdoie certainty, OcIor
the duty to receive them became impert
live: suppose there may have been Ire,
, sury orders, regulating the conduct of CO
leclors and receivers IN tins paricua
T, Any orders which went further than tn
would 60 beyond the law.
The honorable member quotes one Of III
bylaws of the late Bank of the Unite
States; but what has that to do with tt
su5ject' Does the honorable memb,
think that the by laws of the late bar
were ia,cs to the People of the Unite
S'ales' The bank was under no oblg,
: ton TO receive any notes on deposltc e:
Z cert its own. 1t might, therefore, NAL
just such an arrangement with the Treas
:, ry as it saw fit. 1t saw fit to make an
u But neither the Treasury, nor the ban