Liberty advocate. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1835-1866, 1838-07-28

eminent. So has the right to receive
bank paper in public dues, the denial of
which right under the constitution, is the
foundation Of my colleagues new theory
Of finance.
2dly. He says it is expressly granted
in the power to borrow money, under
which this is included; and yet he says
ne never will, in war or in peace, or in
any wise create national debt. But the
Constitution makes a distinction between
bills of credit and borrowing money; for
the issuing Of the former is prohibited to
the States, while no one doubts that they
may borrow money.
He says 1t would be ridiculous to sup
pose that the trainers Of the Constitution
intended to authorize the raising of sup
plies with interest, and not without it; and
yet by Luther Martins report Of the pro-
ceedingS of the Convention, it appears that
that body, after much discussion, denied to
Congress the power to issue bills Of cred :
it, and granted the power to borrow mon
ey; for very obvious reason the borrow
ing Of money does not make money; the
issuing of bills Of credit is making money,
is creating a circulation which is the
avowed object of this bill. My colleague
denies that these are bills OF credit. Judge
Marshall defines bill Of credit to be pa
per issued on the faith Of the Government,
intended for circulation. No one can
dispute the COL cetness Of this definition,
or that these Treasury notes are express
ly within its terms. My colleague states
that these notes are but means Of anticipa-
ting the revenue. This is the sole pur-
pose of all bills of credit, and Of all loans,
and of all national debts.
But my colleague states with an air of
triumph, that am in favor of the joint res
olution of 1916, which authorizes the re-
ceipt OF bank notes, and which is equal to
the Endorsement of such notes by the
Government, and thinks this is inconsis-
tent with my views in regard to Treasury
notes. If this be so, then my colleague
acts inconsistency, in Directing to the res
olution of 1916, with his appreciation OF
these Treasury notes, which he says are
the same thing, His proposition against
me is, that should hold these Treasury
notes to be constitutional, because hold
the receipt ofbank notes under the law of
1916 to be constitutional. Does he moi
perceive that the converse is true; that he,
condemning the resolutions of 1916, should
also condemn these Treasury notes? Be
sides, sir, that part Of the resolution o
1916 is my colleagues own proper work
upon the constitutionality of which he nc
doubt bestowed his serious consideration
before he acted. If the two things are
actually the same, then have my col
leagues authority, by his present vote, fol
the constitutionality oftheir receiving bank
paper. Ifthey be not the same, then his
argument has no bearing.
But there is, Mr.. President, most es-
sential difference, in fact and theory. By
the resolution of 1916 the Government
does not endorse, actually or virtually, the
notes of specie banks. 1t receives them
itself. as long as note is check for spe-
Gle; but it does not guaranty them in the
hands of the holders, if the bank fail, which
is the only conceivable meaning of en-
dorsement. If there were either an actu-
al or virtual endorsement, the Govern
ment would be liable for all the bank pa
per in the United States.
Again; by receiving bank notes, the
Government does not create currency,
but uses one which it finds in existence,
and that no longer than it is equivalent to
specie; whereas the Government paper
must be taken, whether equivalent to spe-
Gle or not.
But most concIusively the Convention
denied to Congress, the power of issuing
bills ofcredit, but placed no limit upon its
receiving in public dues whatever might
seem best.
IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF THE UNITED
STATES. From the annual statements of