Weekly North Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1850-1858, 1856-04-09
Gbe Stan1ar>~
TIE CURRENCY-TnE OBSERVER.


TIE CURRENCY-TIIE OBSERVER.
In a recent Edito, ia the subject Of the curren
cy we came TO the conclusion and So expressed our
selves that the Bank of Fayetteville if it was not
restricted from the issue Of small notes. either by
the act of $780, by the currency act of 1856, was
empowered to issue paper dimes and halt Dimes
THE Fayetteville Observer Of the 9th ult, to
suppose that he has trnmphantly refuted our COZ
clusion We think the Observer has but dissed
pit for his own fall. That readers may have the
whole argument before thcm We quote the material
part of the Observers article:
I'd If the said bank under Its charter as eSpound
ed dollar b may it not also @ Issue ,hs a'ms Sr" ana
ture intended 10 limit the lowest issue to one dollar ny
what Of d"sS M the k amy
that if the power exercised be rghitu the Legislature
has enpowr cred bank in the State and one only! with
paper deS!-or thr y-two millions Of paer half dimes!
win , @ that s" power M was %e1 ne1asd to
These four questions identical and dependent Oh
eac, other that will answer them in a lump ,.,,.,,
y the law of >Ih he issue circulation of "duebltis
was prhb ted. And by the law of l>'9 the term due
bills defined mean pr"ssory n"es for less
sum than ten Shillngs, or 81 tSce Laws OF Nor'h caro-
Ina, edition of ISL V" pages 5 9 and lssi
ted in the Revised Statutes edition of 1887, page 2l2-
And was in force in ls4s-. when the charter of the Bank
of Fayetteville passed OF the Bask Of Fayette
nn" ". due and half NE b.s or anv other bills
dollar The evidence that the Legislature in
tended limit the lowest issue to 81, IS expressly COLI
tanned in that law Tha, law fixes the limit, The stand
ard sage conclusion therefore, is not 'inev'abe;" it
Can it be possible that he editor of the Standard "a
lawyer himself and assisted he has undoubtedly been
distinguished lawyers wh prepared Revised Code) is
ignorant of these laws of the State? We cannot suppose
ii. so ignorant, it is certainly most remarkable. And
if motif the editor of the above cited aws-it
maness Of the boest and badest attempts at hum
But i, is not only humbug. The whole scope of the
questions shcws that the Standard intends to represent us
dime bills and thus make defence Of the law as it
really exists od"us the public mind Instead 1 dis
conceas material lcts when turns We have hpe
of seeing this plain to its questions or any OF
the facts stated in last to the passage OF the Bank
charter, piel into the Stand rt'
Now admit for arguments sake, that "due bill !"
was defined by the act of 1909 to be "a pro'nsso'
ry note under dollar" it is more than question
able that bunk notes were intended to be included.
We have always understood that the laws of 1909
and 1916 were intended TO operate on individuals,
and on corporations not entrusted with tho regua-
ton of the currency. The preamble to the act OF
lSl6-the whole context Of that and the act of 1909,
and the marked difference in the phraseoogy of the
act of 1876 in sections g. O. and 10, where the term
bank notes is used, forbid be quite confident
YER and the Observer part of one
But suppose allow the construction contendcd
for of the tlucbll acts, and that in 1913 they did
apply to all bank notes under dollar; the result
will be inevitable that the Bank of Fayetteville is
now violating the law of 1856 and proceed to
show it, The first due hill act was passed in 1909
Previously wit, in 1904, the Banks Of Cape Feal
and Newbcrn We're chartered without any restriction
upon the size of their notes. Now. we ask the Oh
server if the issues of those banks affected by
the act of 1909? If the act Of 1909 did not reach
those banks, neither did that of 1916 for the Stat
Bank. chartered 1910, is expressly limited in it
issues ;-and in 1914, the charters of the other tw
banks amended, and they were restricted ii
Ike manner. So that the only bank created in for
ty years, which has fallen under its force, IS tn
Bank of Fayetteville!
Now, little lawyer are, we know that tn
prohibiting the issue Of due bills did not becom
any part Of the charter of the Bank OF Fayetteville
and the contract of that corporation with the publ
Is precisely the same, with or without the exstenc
of the duc-bi act The Observer admits that bu
for the duebll act, in force in 1s4s the Fayette will
bank would have had full authority, on it's creation
to issme paper dimes and half dimes. We'll, til
due6iU uct Is nou repealed and we most respect
fully ask the Observer what there is to restrain tn
Bank of Fayetteville from the issue of dEits unles
it be section of the currency act which forbid
the issue Of notes under 50
We have said that the law respecting due-bil'
(or notes under dollar, as the Observer define
them,) constituted no part of the charter-no pal
Of the contract between the public and the Bank {
Fayetteville. Ifit did, it would be equally true tha
all the general laws concerning the counterfeiting
bank notes became, and are parts of the charter :
and so it would follow that material modification
Of those laws could be made, far as they afec
the notes of that bank, without its concurrence
When, therefore, the Observer ADMITS that the BAN
was restrained by the general law respecting due
bills from issuing notes under one dollar. he admits
by consequence that the right to issue notes of al