Liberty advocate. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1835-1866, 1838-07-28
"PASSAGE AT ARMS"
Betpeen the too South Carolina Senators
on the TREASURY Note Bill.

Mr.. CALHOUN said, his colleague had
made an objection against the constititu
tionality of this bill which he deemed it
proper to notice. 1t was rule with him,
where the constitution is supposed to be
involved, to bestow his serious considera-
ton before he acted, and if he saw reason
to doubt, not to give his assent. He had
complied with the rule in this case and the
result was clear conviction that the bill
was constitutional.-The right had been
exercised from the commencement of the
Government without being before ques-
toned, and, according to his conception,
came within the powers expressly granted
to Congress to borrow money, which
meant neither more nor less than to raise
supplies on the public credit. Interest
was not essential to borrowing; and it
would be ridiculous to suppose that the
trainers of the Constitution intended to au-
thorize the raising Of supplies with inter-
est, and prohibit it without it. But we
are told that Treasury notes are bills Of
credit, and that the Constitution does not
authorize Congress to issue bills of credit.
He did not deem it necessary to 60 into a
formal discussion on either point. He de-
MED that they we're bills Of credit, in any
proper sense of those terms. They were
intended to raise supplies 10 meet tempo
rary deficit in the Treasury, and in fact
were nothing more than means Of antici-
pating the revenue.
But he would not pursue the argument
He would bring it to short, decisive is
sue with his colleague. His colleague is
the strenuous advocate of the joint resolu-
luton of 1916, which authorizes the collec-
ton of the revenue in the notes of spe-
cie-paying banks, and has no scrupes
as to the right Of collecting in the notes
of banks that do not pay the specie
Now, no one will deny, that to author
ize the receipt of bank notes in the
payment OF the dues of the Govern
ment is virtually to endorse on each note
that it shall be received in the public dues;
or if the Government had the right to do
the one, it had the right to do the other
Nor will it be denied that, if the Govern
ment has the right to write on the back of
bank note that it will be received in the
public dues, it has an equal right to write
the same on a blank piece of paper, or,
which is the same thing, to make Trea-
sury note. The truth is, that to author
ize bank notes TO be received in the public
dues, is neither more nor less than to make
them to that extent, Treasury notes, and
is, pro tanto, as much the making and Is
suing of such notes, as if done on separate
pieces Of paper. If the one be unconstltu-
tional, the other is clearly so. Now no
would make this bargain with his col
league, and other advocates of the connec-
ton with the banks; if they will give up
the use Of the bank paper to the Govern
ment, he would give up the use OF the
Treasury notes; and if they will deny the
constitutionality Of receiving bank notes,
he would not insist on the constltutlonall-
ty of Treasury notes; and in so doing ne
would make very good bargain for the
country. But he was utterly unwilling TO
admit construction, which, while 1t de-
MED TO the government the use Of its cred
it, would give the monopoly OF 1t to the
banks.
Mr.. Preston. beg leave to say word
or two in rejoinder to my colleagues re-
ply to the constitutional objections which
| urged when first spoke.
In the first place, he states that the
right to issue Treasury notes has been ex-
ercised from the foundation Of the Tov"