Liberty advocate. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1835-1866, 1838-09-29

: them" The objection that these are bills
of credit, and, therefore, unconstitutional,
! is without even FEASIBILITY The states
} only are prohibited from issuing bills of
credit; obviously because it would inter-
, fere with the power OF Congress to regu-
, late the currency. The phrase "bills of
! credit" too, conveys technical idea which
can only b understood by referring to our
revolutionary history. II meant precise
~ the bIl4of credit OF that day and moth
ing else. Our Supreme Court in this
State, have accordingly decided that
the bills Of our State bank, are not bills
of credit, thoughgthey are based entirely
on the credit OF he State, and constitute
large portion of its currency. But the
government Of the United States does not
propose to make these Treasury notes a
general currency. 1t only proposes 10
receive them in discharge of its own dues,
and to pay them to its own customers with
their consent. If they goout Of this mar
row circle, ii will be by the agency ofthe
parties concerned, and because they may
happen to answer better than any thing
else to transmit funds TO a distance. But
if the amount issued is limited judiciously,
they will soon return to their appropriate
sphere Of circulation. In single word,
the power to borrow money, either upon
stock certificates of Treasury notes, or in
any other imaginable mode, is expressly
granted to Congress, and though Treasu-
ry notes were largely issued during our
last war with England, even the New
England federalists, who denied the power
ofCongress 10 call the militia into the ar
mics OF the country, never questioned Its
power 10 issue these notes.
The notion that the issue of these Trea-
sury notes, would convert the Treasury
into bank is purely chmerical. There
is not the sembIance of reality in it. 1t
would neither receive depositcs nor grant
loans on discounted notes. To the limited
extent Of its issues, it would be more ap-
propriate to call il mint, as it would Gre
ate, TO that extent, what would answer the
purposes of the public Treasury, better
than coin, without any cost to the people.
Now why such vehement opposition to this
Treasury paper on the part of those who
are so much opposed to the exactlon OF
specie in payment Of dues to the Govern
ment, when it is obvious that it would SUI
percede the use of specie at the Treasury
almost entirely2 Is it because it would
also supercede the use of Bank bills in the
operations of the Treasury? Can 1t be
possible that any patriotic citizen would
prefer the interest Of few favored banks,
10 that ofthe United States, and therefore,
compel the government TO use the credit
Of the banks instead of its own in collec-
| ting and dlsbursing its own revenues? |
am aware that many members of Con-
gress at the North have their private in
teress so deeply involved in the banks. that
it is with them question between selfin-
terest and patriotism Indeed the great
controlling moned interest of the North,
exists in the shape OF Bank stocks, which
sufficiently accounts for the vehemence
with which Mr.. Webster denounces the
proposed Treasury paper as continental
money, when plain common sense dictates
that ifthe Government were bankruptto
the amount of thousand millions, these
Treasury certificates, would forever re-
main at par, as long as the government
should continue to collect annually an
amount of revenue sufficient to absorb
them. Tie sole foundation Of their cred
it is that the Government will receive
them and that their amount does not ex-
coed the sum annually required to collect
and disburse the public revenue. Now
when it is known that the continental
money exceeded this proportion some
hundred fold, the absurdity ofthe sugges-
ted analogy must be apparent to those who
have not very strong interest in not per-
sewing it. But must close abruptly
am on the eve Of setting out for Europe,
md regret that have only had time 10
write this hasty scrawl on SO important
subject,
Very sincerely, yours,
GEO. McDUFFIE.
SAM'L. A. TONNES. Esq.