Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1857-12-02

question was canyasssd and turned over, and
considered and reconsidered by these Judges, In
their consultations upon the case; and it was
so beyond all doubt. And yet, whsn We look
to the decision Of Chief Justice MARSHALL,
made up with great care, although, as we have
a right to presume, this view was pressed upon
him BY Mr.. Justice THoMPsoS, he says nothing
about tides not intimate it would be other
wiss-but comes boldly up to the issue, aud
affrms the Law to be unconstitutional.
But, sir, / have not done with this question
yet. We come now to the second case, and
now do we end it2 1t is worthy of observs-
ton, and it is a proper fact to state in this
Convention, in ascertaining the true weight of
this decision, that Chief Justice MARSHALL
was upon the bench when this case was FIRST
argued that be heard all the arguments which
we're presented to the COurt-that be had al
the facts before him, and formed bis own opin-
ion. In this case, in IL Peters, in which Mr.
JUS ice MCLEAN delivered the decision, it Is
singular fact, that Chief Justice MARSHALL
had considered this case maturely and it is
further a singular fact, that while be lived, a
Htyg - " az I0Hfs "a NN1H y ALa N0uNAA
sioa that this very State Bank charter 5Gs I'M
constitutional. Sir, I do not speak without
authority upon this subject. Let Us hear the
dissenting opinion Of Justice SroEY on this
point:
q When this case was formerly argued be-
fore this Court, a majority ef the Judges, who
then heard it, were decidedly Of the opinion
that the act OF Kentucky establishing this
bank was unconstItutiona and void, as amount
ing to an authority 10 emit bills Of credit for
and on behalf Of the Sac, within the prohibi-
tion Of the United States. In principle II was
thought to be decided by the case Of Craig Is.
the State Of Missouri. Among that majority
was the late Chief Justice Marshall. The case
has been again argued, and precisely upon the
same grounds as at the former argument. A
majority Of my brethren have now pronounced
the act Of Kentucky to be constitutional"
We know one thing from this dissenting
opinion. We know, in the first place, that
Chief Justice MARSHALL was prepared to de-
clare an opinion in this case. We know what
opinion be declared in the case Of Craig Us.
the State Of Missouri and that be had sx-
pressed an opinion that the charter of the Bank
Of Kentucky was unconstitutional. Here is a
State Bank be thought that unconstitutional
There a State undertakes to issue bills OF credit
in another form, and be declares that Issue,
also, to be unconstitutional But he dies, the
Court is changed, and we get upon the same
argument and the same facts, a directly diff
fersnt opinion. Sir, this is not a case on which
I would rely to determine a question Of such
Importance as this.
- L--~-h - ~. 80
ment, and then l will close. What says the
Constitution on this subject? "No State shall
grant letters Of marque and r~eprissl, coin
money, emit bills Of credit, or make anything
but gold and silver a tender in payment Of
debts.o
There stand these four prohibitions upon the
same platform. The prohibition in reference
to them all is in the same language, in the
same paragraph. They are all associated, and
it is expressly declared, no State shall DO all or
any of them. Take these four prohibitions:
"NO State shall grant letters of marque OF
r~eprisaI" Can she authorize corporation to
grant them? No, says the gentleman from
Bslmont-that is clear. No State shall coin
money" Can she authorize a corporation to
coin money? No, says the gentlenan-that is
clear. The courts, also, say no = Justice
MCLEAN, too, says "no." "NO State shall
make anything but gold and silver coin a ten
der in payment Of debts" Can she authorize
otherwise? No-that is clear.
"No State shall emit bills Of credit" Can a
State, then, authorize a corporation to emit
bills Of credit? Here, Sir, We eOme to the
single thread By which the gentleman from
Belmont holds up his great argument. Here
are these four things ali in the same paragraph.
The prohibition in reference to them all is in
the same language, as | have already stated;
and yet, while it is admitted that a State can
not 90 any of them herself, or authorize one or
the other to be done, it is C ontended that she can
authorize The doing ofjust one Of them. Suppose
the State of OHIO should undertake to estab-
lish within her borders a mint-or, rather.
should create a corporation to coin money.
The charter, If you please, is most carefully
drawn. It's directions are full and specific. It
requires that the proportions of gold and silver
and alloy shall be eXaet-that the metal shall
be as pure, Just as pure as that used in the ma
tional mints; that they shall use the same ma
ehinery pct upon the metal the same stamp;
rim it in the same way, and 80 prepare it that
the coin, when il comes out, shall be a fac
s~iHlils, a perfect imitation, of that issued BY
our mints at Philadelphia, New Orleans, aud
elsewhere. Il shall be an identical dollar or
half-dollar-Prscissly as valuable, precisely
az passable ; so perfect that it will stand all
the tests Of the scales, the touch, the eye, the
ring, the snife, aud all others. H. all thesere-
spects It is genuine, impsrishable coin. Yet
these gentlemen viii rise in their places here
and say, Z" yOu cannot DO it; it is uncons.itu
Jionsl +" and, notwithstanding this, they pres
upon US a proposition, that State may authors
lie that same corporation to make as much pa
per money as they pleased they say that no
harm is done; that no authority is violated;
that this Issuing Of paper money is al right!
We cannot authorize you, they say, to make
gold CT silver coin, even if it should be as good
in every respect as that coming from the ma
tionsl mint but you may make paper money
ad iEfaaEm.
Sir, | cannot comprehend the philosophy Of
e1A1s We NdAAAoAg NNA1~AsulAeAAAAy NAM F1AE
money, but we may make this spurious money.
All admit that The first cannot be done, and yet
many claim that the second can be done.
What, sir, was the argument of the gentle
man from Belmont on this question? Accord
ing to my recollection Of it, it was this: "a
State cannot authorize a corporation 10 grant
letters of marq1e aud reprisal; it cannot su-
thorize a corporation to coin money; ! so nH-
derstand it !hatis the language Of the CouTts.n
But, whe5 it comes to making an inferior kind
Of money, something which we may call an
adulteraiion of the real coin, then it may be
done with impunity. A State cannot authorize
a corporation to do these things, because the
regulation of them is prohibited to the State
and reserved to the General Government end
then the further proposition is made, that indi-
viduals have a natural, inherent and i~naliena-
BIZ" right to make paper money TO any amount
they please. That is the argument, and there
is a great deal of ingenuity in it.
Bat, sir, it will not sand the test. I an not
prepared to admit that individuals have the
right to issue paper money. 0ae thing is Ger
tain that long ago, in every age and country,
this subject Of the currency has been consider
ed and treated as exclusively belonging to gov
eminent They have regulated it-they have
claimed it as belonging to their sovereignty.
In reply to this argument, Get Us look at the
true state of the case Everywhere this right
70 issue paper money is denied, BY law, to the
people. No Individual, then, can do it. lis
forbidden BY statute, OF otherwise. The right,
if be had it, is taken away. 1t is upon this
state of the case the question is TO be made.
Can the State, having no power to do it herself,
empower, authorize, By Incorporation, the eiti-
zen to do It? Notice the language of such acts
Of Incorporation. They are grants, actual
grants of power and privilege from the State