Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1858-09-02

ceived upon deposit, and therefore TO be
paid for in coin. 1t may we'll be do .bted
and in fact am confident, that under the
contract above referred To-, these Bank notes
are not "money received upon deposit" A
Bank note is simply promise 10 pay mon-
ey, and certainly promise to pay money
cannot itself be money. | am aware that
: the courts Of the several States have deci-
ded that Bank note is money, but this
opinion has been vigorously opposed by
: several of the abest courts Of the United
States, among which l may mention, the
Supreme Court OF Pennsylvania, in case Of
Mccormick VS.. Trotter, 10 Sergeant and
Rawl, "a; in Mas sachusetts in the case Of
Jones vs. Faber, Mass. 245; in Vermont,
: IL VT. r. 26S, in the case of Collins VS..
Lincoln; and in South Carolina in /, Nc.
Cord LANCE VS.. Kuhns, ll5; and in Ten
nessee in case Deberry VS.. DANIEL, YER
ger, 54l. In this last case Judge Catron
says that Bank mole can in no case be
treated as cash. But, besides those author
tiles, l rely upon the 9Th and 10Th sections
of the Constitution OF the United States as
defining that money is only such coin as is
autorized by Congress.
Upon these high authorities might well
base an argument that these Bank notes are
not money, and do not come within any Of
the terms used in the 9Th section before re-
lerred TO, ii being admitted that this labili-
~ is not claimed by any of the terms,
''notes, bills or obligations"
But the abstract question, whether or
not these notes may be included under the
expression, money received upon deposit"
is not necessarily involved in the present
issue; for it is clearly competent for the
Banks TO make contract with the deposit
TOR that these bills shall not be received as
money, but as bankable funds in the nature
OF quasi special deposit.
BY the 4th section of article / Banking
Law, the Bank is allowed 10 "receive and
pay out the notes of any Bank or Branches
thereof established by the authority OF this
State; but shall not pay out the notes or
bills of any other Bank or Branch Bank,
excepting such as it will receive at par in
payment Of debts due the Bank" These
notes are received at par in payment for
debts due the Bank, or for bills OF exchange,
or for any notes which may be deposited
with the Bank for collection. In short,
they are received at par in all transactions.
But the Bank has refused, directly or indi-
rectly, 10 allow the gold TO be withdrawn on
these notes for The palpable object of ship
nent TO other States 10 the great injury Of
the commercial interests of our own people
and the prostration of our financial resour-
ces.
The 44th section of article Banking
law has also been cited as having some
reference 10 this question. But do not re-
gard it as in any manner touching the issue
now under discussion. The object of this
section is to drive from the State the irre-
deemable Bank notes of other States now
circulating in this State under the name Of
currency. ard which this Bank does not
receive or pay out in any manner whatever.
A clear understanding OF this question
may be had by single glance at the object
of the Legislature in The creation of our
Banks and the nature of the restrictions
which were sought to be imposed. The
first object was 10 give 10 the people con-
venient paper currency in which they might
have full confidence, as resting upon
sound specie basis; not as it is absurdly
suggested sometimes, currency converti-
bic into coin at every point in the State,
but which should be the legitimate repre-
sentative Of the coin at the place where it
is made payable. To effect this object the
Banks were required always to have in
their vaults an amount of coin sufficient 10
insure The prompt redemption of their bills
when presented at the place where they
were made payable; and in every respect 10
comply with all their promises and obliga-
| lions.
While the Banks of other States, based
upon stocks and other securities, are al
lowed to issue their bills, by which they
promise TO pay money, without ever being
expected or required TO comply literally
with that promise, it was required that all
our Banks should comply strictly with all
their engagements. But nothing beyond
this was required. 1t was not intended
that the Banks should do more than q fair
construction of their contracts would seem
10 imply. If the Bank promises 10 pay
money at Springfield, it was not intended
that it should pay the same bill at St. Louis.
But all that the law requites of the Bank, is
a strict compliance with all its contracts
Therefore, if the Bank promises TO pay ST.
600 in the notes Of its Branch at SPRING
field, payment in these notes is compli-
ance with the contract, and the coin can
only be demanded at Springfield. So if
the Bank promises TO pay $1,000 in the
notes of specie paying Banks, which notes
are made payable without the city Of ST.
LOUIS, certainly an offer 10 pay in such
funds is strict and literal compliance with
this contract; much more than if the Bank
has received these notes on deposit, under
a special contract TO return, OH demand,
similar notes, tender of such notes is
complete compliance with this contract.
Very respectfully, your o'bt ser't.
C F. BURNES.