Southern Argus. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1834-1842, 1842-06-07

COnulHOHi ltIlHSo lChioS
DAYS, but on the 18Th OF the same
month, the legislature passed The sup
elemental act, and it received the APP
prevail of the Executive, and this IS
the act which it is said is unconstltu-
tional, and which being so, must also
vitiate the original act, after 1t had a
constitutional existence for ten days,
merely because the supplemental act
protested to make alterations IN the
original act. Now, if this act be alb
solutely void, how, | would ask, can it
interfere with law which was valid,
and which had been in force ten days
before the void act was passed! II
it was void, it could alter nothing;
| il had no constitutional being; 1t could
not connect itselfwith the original law;
il was powerIess, and can present no
impediment whatever to the validity OF
the charter. If, then, the position ia
ken be the true one, we get clear OF
nothing but the supplemental act, and
this does not interfere with the light OF
action. By the original act, the pow
er to take notes and sue on them IS full
Iy provided for, and lflhat be valid, las
| think have shewn it to be then the
remedy is undoubted, and the plea
presents no bar to the action.
The third plea is that the note sued
on was given for loan on post notes
issued by the bank to circulate as mon
ey, when by the charter the bank could
only issue notes payable on demand,
and that the contract is void.
The charter is entirely silent as to
what description of notes the bank
should issue, and if we were TO declare
that they could only issue notes paya-
bic on demand,it would be ENGRAVING
a condition on the charter which lis
provisN would not authorize. BY
the ninth Section, the subscribers for
stock were created body corporate,
with power to hold property, and they
were authorized "to loan, to negotiate,
to take mortgages and pledges, and to
discount on such terms and such secu-
rites as they. should think proper"
By the 18th section, it was provided
HAT the bank should not issue any bill,
note or check for less than ten dollars.
Although the power is no where cx-
pressly given to issue notes of any de-
sciption, yet it is clearly an implied
power, arising from these Two provis-
ions. 1t was evidently the design Of
he Legislature that it should do so.
This is manifested as we'll by the fore
going provisions, as by the nature Of
the institution, which ii was creating
ltwas designed thatits discounts should
be made in It's own notes. Having
then the power to issue notes and put
them in circulation, there is no rule by
which we can arrive at the conclusion
that notes on demand were intended
and not post notes. 1t would be fair
to construe the act in reference to the
power exercised by similar Institutions,
as we may fairly presume such custom
was known to the Legislature. The
custom ofissuing post notes had pre-
viously prevailed with the banks both
in this State and elsewhere, and the
inference is the legislature intended TO
confer on this institution such powers
as were generally exercised by banks.
Certainly they authorized the bank 10
issue notes, and not having fixed the
precise description Of the notes it
should issue, it is not with US to do so.
Neither post notes nor notes on de-
mand are money, nor can they in strict
ness be said TO be the sntatives
of money. How can the notes Of a
bank be the representatives of its mon
ev. when it may issue three times as
much in notes as it hasin money? They
are but a substituted currency, circula-
ted by legislative appreciation, and for
MANY purposes regarded as money,
merely because they are used as a cir
culating medium. If then neither be
money, post notes would constitute a
consideration for a note given for them,
quite as legal as would note on de-
mand' Both are but promissory notes,
and they differ in nothing but in the
time of payment. If one be legal
consideration for contract, the other
must also be. They may differ in their
value, but this is not a question before
us. Mutual promises constitute sufi-
cient considerations, the one for the
other. 1t is but by common consent
that bank notes circulate as money; the
legislature has no power to dec lare
them to be money; and if by common
consent one description Of note may be
considered as money, so may another
be. Perhaps it has not been as COM
mon for banks 10 issue post notes as
notes on demand; but when issued,
they have circulated as money in the
same way that notes on demand have,
and as the legislature was silent on this
subject in the charter, their tacIt con-
sent may be implied; but at all events,
there is nothing which enables US to
/ 81 Il L A. L 4