Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1856-04-05
THE C11RRENCY-THE OBSERVER.

THE CURRENCY-THE OBSERVER.
Tn recent Editorial on the subject of the curren-
~ we came to the conclusion, and 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 1885, was
emnowered to issue paper dimes and half Dimes
The Fayetteville Observer of the 9th ult., seems to
suppose that he has triumphantly refuted our con-
clusion We think the Observer has but digged
pit for his own fall. That readers may have the
whole argument before them, we quote the material
part of the Observers article:
Cd elf the said bank under its charter as expound
half dime bss Where is the evidence that the Legsla-
ure intended to limit the lowest issue to dOar By
what process of reasoning does the Observer fix mt9
It cannot be deniedindeed the conclusion is inevitable
that if the power exercised be rgh the Legislature
has empowered bank in the State and only with
paper dmes-or thirtytwo millions of paper half dmes
will the Observer insist that such power was intended to
These four questions are so Identical and dependent on
each other, that we will answer them in q lump.
BY the law of 1876 the issue circulation Of "due-bis'
was prohibited And by the law of 1909 the term due
bills defined t" mean promssory notes for less
sum than ten shngs or 81. (See Laws of North Caro-
lima edition of S S is
ted in Revised Statutes edition of 1887 page 2l2
And force in s4s when the charter of the Bank
of Fayetteville passed Of the Bank of Fayettc
issuing dime and half dime bills, any other bills un-
tended limit the lowest issue to ST. is expressly
tanned in that law. That law fixes the limit. The Stand
ards sage conclusion therefore, is not inevabe" it
is absurd contrary to the words of the statute
Can it be possible that the editor of the Standard "a
lawyer himself and assisted he has undoubtedly been
during the discussion of this subject by at least of the
distinguished lawyers who prepared thesRevised Code is
ignorant of these laws of the Stae We cannot suppose
ii. fsO Ignorant it is certainly most remarkable And
the above cited lawS-it
manests of the bodes and baldest attempts at hum
bug that we have yet
But ii is not oily a humbug The whole scope of the
questions shows that the Standard intends represent
claiming the right in the Bank to issue dime and half
really exists odious in the public mind Instead of dis
cussing fairly question of policy and Of law like this
even of seeing this plain to its questions or any of
the facts stated in last to the passage OF the Bank
charter, copied into the Standard
Now admit, for arguments sake, that "due-bil "
was defined by the act of 1909 to be " a promisso-
ry note under dollar" it is more than question
able that bank notes were intended to be included
We have always understood that the laws of 1909
and 1916 were intended to operate on individuals,
and corporations not entrusted with the regula-
ton of the currency. The preamble to the act of
lS16the whole context of that and the act of 1902
and the marked difference in the phraseology of the
oSSSS'io
bank notes is used forbid to be quite as confident
as the Observer is-though half of US be half law
yer. and the Observer no part of one.
But suppose allow the construction contended
for of the due-bll acts, and that in ls4S they did
apply TO all bank notes under one dollar the result
will be inevitable that the Bank of Fayetteville is
now violating the law of 1856; and we proceed to
show it. The first bill act was passed in 1909
Previously, to wit, in 1904 the Banks of Cape Fear
and Newbern were chartered without any restriction
upon the size of their notes. Now, we ask the OBJ
if the issues of those banks were affected by
the act of 1909? If the act of 1909 did not reach
those banks neither did that of 1916 for the State
Bank, chartered il $780, is expressly limited in its
issues and in 1874 the charters of the other two
banks were amended, and they were restricted in
like manner. So that the only bank created in for
ty years, which has fallen under its force, is the
Bank of Fayetteville!
Now, little lawyer as We are, we know that the
act prohibiting the issue of bills did not become
any part of the charter of the Bank of Fayetteville;
and the contract of that corporation with the public
is precisely the same, with without the existence
of the due-bi act. The Observer admits that but
" ~~S ~SS1
bank would have had full authority, on its creation.
to issue paper dimes and half dimes. Well, the
due-bW act is now repealed; and We most respect.
fully ask the Observer what there is to restrain the
Bank of Fayetteville from the issue of Dimes unless
1t be section Of the currency act, which forbids
the issue of notes under So?
We have said that the law respecting due-bil.s,
Tor notes under one dollar, the Observer defines
them) constituted no part of the charter-no part
OF the contract between the public and the Bank of
Fayetteville lift did, it would be equally true that
all the general laws concerning the counterfeting of
bank notes became, and are, parts of the charter;-
ana so 1t would follow that material modification
OF those laws could be made so far as they affect
the notes of that bank without its concurrence
When, therefore, the Observer ADMITS that the bank
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 all
denominations formed no part OF the charter. For,
II there be such right, then it exists Independently
ofand above any general law the subject In other
words if the silence of the charter in regard the
size OF the notes is an implied grant to issue notes
Of any sze that grant is eectual and forcible as
if it had been expressed in words Now. if such
grant had been expressly made, the law respecting
dae-bis would have been superseded as to that
bank. But II the general law respecting due
bills be no part of its charter, and yet governs
the bank and operates to restrain its issues it fol.
lows, most logically, that the silence respecting the
size of the notes is not equivalent to contract that
it was to issue bills of any size. Indeed it follows
that the regulation Of the size Of the bills is with
the public, since there is chartered right or
tract in relation thereto And this result accords