The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1856-07-23

from il.
The p0wer to issue notes for circulation is
not restricted BY the charter under c0nsde-
rati'n; il embraces notes oi all denominations
under as well as over one dollar. But it is
clear. that the charter must be construed
With reference to the existing laws The act
Of 1916 tRev. Sat. chap. 81, sec &C., pro.
hibi,s any person or corporation from issuing
promi,.ory notes called due bills" under one
dollar for circulation as money and it is
agreed the pnwer is restricted by this act
50 a, To exclude the right to issue due bills.
II j. insisted the act Of 1880 (Rev. Sat,
chap. II sec. |. has similar effect, and
restricts The power so as to exclude the right
to issue bank notes under five dollars. Un
the other hand. it is insisted that the act of
1880 applies only to the notes Of the banks
ol oher States. SO the question is /: Did that
act apply to the notes Of the banks Of this
State? We think ii did not. II enacts, :" ii
shall not be lawful for any person to pass,
circulate or receive in payment within this
State, any bank nate under the denomination
Of five dollars, issued BY any State or sover.
eighty, or BY any body polite or corporation,
nut authorized to issue the same by any Of
The laws or statutes Of this Stale" These
words are satisfied BY giving them the effect
Iof prohibiting the circulation Of the small
mites Of the banks Of other States. The twu
principal banks in this State were au.
thorized BY law 10 issue notes under five dol
lars; so, the circulation Of their notes is ex-
pressly taken out of the prohibition, and
there is but little ground to support the sug.
gestiun that this WAS prospective general
enactment, aimed at banks that night al
some future time be chartrd in this State
and might, as it was feared, issue such bills,
although not authorized 10 DO 50. Again. il
Il was intended TO apply to the notes Of our
banks. il is reasonable To suppose that il
the issuing of such bills. The act Of 1916
has iva sections, one against the issuing and
the other against passing or receiving "i
" dne bills !" act Of 1852, BY one section, pro-
hibirs the issuing. and By another, the circu
laii0n Of notes under three dollars, and the
omission 0f the act OF 1880 nf All enactment
against the issuing Of notes under five dol
lars. tends to show that it wa. aimed exclu-
si,ely al the banks. Of other States, over
whose power to issue our Legislature could
assume no control.
Bat all ground TO support the suggestion Of
a prospective general enactment above refer
red to, is taken away by the fact that the title
of the act of 1880 is. /" An act to prohibit he
circulation, in this State, after the time
therein mentioned, Of bank NOES under five
dollars. issued by the banks Ol o,her States.
The title OF statute may be- invoked in aid
of ils construction, Rer rs. Cartwright, 4 T.
X. 400 Dwarriss on Statutes, Is. 1t is true,
IN the Revised Statutes the title is changed
aud general words are used, " An acttopro-
hlbit the circulation Of bank notes under the
denomination Of five dollars" But change
in ihe title Ut an act, in making a reyisaI. i.
not permitted 10 alter the construction which
Was before proper. when the same word,
were used in The enactment, unless the title
hal been allowed the effect of altering wha
would otherwise have been the construction
Terry rs. Foster. /. Mass. Rep. $50. Here
as W. have seen, the construction confnn:
il 10 the notes Of the banks Of other State
does not depend simply upon the title.
I But suppose il be Welded that this chang,
/ in the title was made TO allow the genera
wnds to have application 10 hanks in thi
STATE. il any should ever issue notes in yio
laiiOn Of their charter. - that the act q
1916 iiNrs penalty iur issuing notes with
out authority, aud this act prohibits thei
circulation. still that wontl leave The glcs
tIon open in regard 10 the authority 10 issu
under any particular charter. which is ih
question now under consideration.
II was further insisted. although the &C
81 1880 NAV not Of itself be Sufficient 10 rvs
lrict this charter. yet il has mat effect, whei
taken in connection with the fact that III
several acts Incorporating the other banks al
contain a provision making il wrongful to i,
sue small notes; thus showing the settle
p ,licy to be to prevent the issue aud eircula
iion of such notes, - As 10 drive them ou
aud make room for metallic basis. We ar
asked, can il be possible that tie Legislator
intended 10 abandon this iavorilc policy an
confer. at the expense of tie public, spccis
privilege upon the bank of Fayetteville. /
which 0ur other banks we're nnt az liberty /
participate. l. such a construction Of tli
charter reasOnablrf We have given 10 hi
; suggestion much cons nsderatiUn. difficult
presents itself At the outset. The act
1880 and tie charter 81 the bank Of Ne
; Bern. excluded all notes under five dollar
the charters Of the bank Of the State an
! the bank ol tape Fear excluded only not,
under three dollars This creates uncertain,
, ia regard 10 the /" settled pulley = and il a
, tempting. by inference irom these statutes
. 70 impose = restriction upon the bank ,
Fayetteville, il would be found inpossibl
{ To- decide whether the limit shu1ld BE- Fixed !
(, Eve or three. Hut We have rune 10 the cut
! clpsion that the unlv legitimate effect
{ which this Argument is entitled is, 10 pro,
. that 10 all probability the omission ot p,
5 yisinn as TO issuing small nules, similar
! th4t inserted in the charters of tie 9th,
5 banks. vas an oversight. In other word
!, the Legislature, from mere inad,rrtane
: T,,rynf Ia insert IL III wp vera NJ lthsrfy