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

Of credit and the phrase, as applied to the
issues Of the Colonies, is borrowed. what
are TIE issues Of banks in the present dayf In
form a promissory note. We call them " bank
notes y or & bank baIs,a and, byway of abbES-
Walton, we have dropped The v words "9
eredit.D
Thus II is shown that this term was used IN
connection with bank notes; that it was used
in the early charters, and that it applies as
well to this species Of paPer as to any other
sD.cies Of paper. Although there is much
more mat is interesting in this book on this
question, / do not design to read more from II
at present; but let me say that Justice STORY
takes up this inquiry as to what is meant by a
bill ef credit in the right way and in the right
direction. He investigates its history as con-
psetsd with the Colonies, With Congress, Win
the Confederaey, and with banks across the
water aud elsewhere, and comes to the eoneiu-
sion, beyond all doubt, that bank bills are bills
of credit within the meaning OF the Constitu-
ton Of The United States. Bank bills at that
time were called bills of credit. EFsrything
was 50 biu Of credits that was intended to cir
eulsie in the community as currency or money.
That was the signifestiOn in which it was
known, and no matter in what form 1t was
issued, no matter if there was no fund pledged
for is redemption-noae of those things enter
| ed into the Specification OF the term for these
abils Of credit were issued in every possible
form. They were issued on credit; they were
issued payable on demand; they were issued
with security, and they were issued without
! security they were issued upon the faith Of
colonies, and they were issued upon funds pro-
vided for their redemption they were issued
10 every possible form that human ingenuity
could devise, having no one common quality
but the single one that they circulated in the
community as money, and 1t is by that you
know them, and BY nothing else. How then
/ do we stand upon this question? l admit, MIR.
President, that in the case from which / last
read, Mr.. Justice McLsAN seems to qualify
and limit the dshnitiOn given BY Chief Justice
| MARSHALL as being too broad. Let US look
into that matter aud see whom we shall trust.
Who was Chief Justice MARSHALL? and was
be or was be not qualified to institute an IN
ouiry as to the meaning of the term? pro
pose to institute no comparison between that
gentleman and tie other l have mentioned.
( The first in his day, stood first the latter now,
l am willing to admit, is equally eminent; but
/ think there is 10 one who will not say that
the opinions Of the former on this subject are
entitled to quite as much weight as those of the
latter. Ay, Mr.. President, | must go further,
and saw that as between these two eminent
Judges, we are called upon BY all the circum-
stances of the case 20 take the definition given
BY Chief Justice MARSHALL in preference to
that given BY Mr.. Justice McLEAN. They are
both men Of undoubted ability, but it must be
remembered that Chief Justice MARSHALL was
a cotemporary of the very times when all these
things took place. He saw for himself what
was going on be heard for himself what was
said. He was not idle tba he did not see he
was not careless that be did not distinguish
and be comes forward in 1880 aud give bis def
milton Of a bill Of credit. How is it with Mr..
Justice MCLEAN?
He was not contemporaneous with these
times. have no doubt he examined this sub
lee. well; but 1 cannot help but say, that Chief
Justice MARSHALL is the man to whom we
should look for a correct definition Of this
tern.
But, sir, / don't stop here. I have another
iurlst-one who is worthy OF all eulOgy-I
mean Justice STORY; and be, too, labored upon
this question, as upon examination of his com
mentsTies will abundantly appear. He searched
it cut he locked into the action of Congress
and the Confedersey be looked into bauk
charters home aud abroad, and he brings the
conclusion home to every man, thatthe defni-
tioa given BY himself and Chief Justice MAR
SHALL was the true definition, and the only
one that was entertained at the time the phrase
was put into the Constitution. Now l submit
to gentlemen-and remember that these are all
Wing jurists-whose definition shall we take
tie definition given BY Chief Justice MARSHALL,
the first iurist of the country, a definition which
is confirmed and fortified by Justice sroRT, or
the definition OF Justice MCLEAN? This is a
fair question to pat in pursuing this inquiry.
I cannot surrender the opinion Of the two first
named gentlemen, for / have not IN my mind
the shadow Of a doubt that Chief Justice MAR
] SD 9nE lAAuas III AAnh dAIA4NE G4NhA was
right in rsiterating that definition, after Chief
Justice MARSHALL had passed from the stage
of life.
I stand, then, Mr.. President, in this position.
l say that a bank bill is a " bill Of credit.o /
say it upon the authority Of all history I say
it upon the authority Of those eminent Wing
%jarists; l say it upon the authority Of the Fed
ersI Court l say it, sir, upon all the authority
there is on this subject, that a bank bill is a
bill Of credit, within the Specification that was
given to that term in the Constitution Of the
United States, and / beg to repeat again that,
in the very charters Of banks they were SO
called, here and elsewhere; that this was so
at the time the Constitution was framed.
With this established, | come to another branch
Of the question. "No State shall emit bills Of
credit" Here is one decision, in tie Missouri
case, as to the meaning Of the whole phrase
a decision declaring in a certain case, where a
State had undertaken to issue these bills Of
credit, (and that, too, in a form much less OBJ
jeetionable than in the case Of a bank issuing
n%otes,) that it was unconstitutional. Is there
any member Of the Convention who will con-
tend that, il the State in her own name, and in
her own behalf and upon her own faith, should
undertake to issue bank bills, it would not be
unconstitutional / understand the gentleman
from Belmont, (Mr. Kennon) clearly to make
the admission that it would be unconstitutional
That gentleman admitted it, and | have not yet
heard the first person who denies it. "No
state shall emit bills Of credit "-bsnk bills, !
have shown, are " bills Of credit "-therefore
no Safe shall emit bank bills.
Now we come a little further, and, without
reading it from the books, I will fall back
again upon the case CRAIe against the State
Of Missouri. When that case was up for con-
sheraton, Chief Justice MARSHALL came out
boldly and De Jared hat the bills of credit is
sued By the State Of Missouri were an uhcon-
s itutional issue. From that opinion justices
THosPsoN and JOHNSON dissented, and | beg to
be allowed to read a Ettle from their dissent
iug opinions. Justice JoHKsoN says;
She whole history and legislation Of The
time prove that BY bills Of credit the powers OF
tie Constitution meant paper money, with Ie-
ference to that which had been used ia the
States from the commencement Of the century,
down 20 the time when it ceased &c pass, before
reduced TO its innate wOrthlessness."
Again
The great end and object OF this restriction
on the power Of the States viii furnish the best
definition Of the terms under consideration.
The whole was intended to exclude everything
from use as circulating medium, except gold
and silver and to give the United States the
exclusive control over the coming and vaiaing
az the msialle medium. That the real dollar
may represent property, and not the shadow Of
it,
Justice THOMPSON dissented also, and l call
the attention Of the Convention to some of the
language in which be disssnted. The reason
which be assigned throws some light upon the
inquiry which we are now making. He says:
IL these certificates are bills Of credit in