Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1857-1865, 1858-09-10

stitutional and proper, and the more
obviously so because bills under, as well
as over, FIVE dollars are no legal tender
and the State has the right so to enact
But when it goes beyond this point, and
enacts that bargain is no bargain be-
tween competent parties, even when the
consideration is satisfactory to both, and
the terms have been honestly complied
with, it does usurp power not constitu
tional; and when il steps in between con-
tracing parties, and says that the liquida-
ton, by agreement, of debt, with shucks,
or bank notes--of any size--is no pay
ment, and authorizes the creditor to de-
mand repayment, without any outstanding
evidence of liability, it 'impairs the obliga-
ton Of contracts" and encourages palpable
dishonesty. If bank notes are no legal
tender, where is the constitutional distinc-
ton between them and peanuts, as con-
sideration in private contracts. Ifno such
distinction can be found, we insist that no
law can be constitutional which forbids
merchant of GAINESVILLE to barter his goods
for Kentucky bank notes, much less a
law that shall compel man to pay twice
for those goods Itmay be that the courts
Of tone or more States" have recognized
such law as constitutional, and that fact
may have brought the Union Dc American
to the same conclusion we may have erred
in our Interpretation of the Constitution,
and in our estimate of the rights of the
citizen to transact his own business; but
we feel assured that, if the Legislature
has the power to say what man shall, or
shall not, receive in exchange for his COM
modities, and to make man pay the same
debt twice, and without evidence of liabili-
ty, it is time the people were taking steps
to crush an inquisitorial and tyranical
power incomp atible with rational freedom
and at war with the first principles of
justice.-In reply to our views of the
moral tendency of the policy advocated
by the Union 6 American, ii says:
"But the fraud, the rascality, the swind-
ling this law would prevent, would more
than compensate for any inconvenience
that would result from it. We might
answer this last argument of the Chronicle
by saying that the circulation of Bank
bills affords an opportunity for the manu-
facture and circulation of counterfeit
money, and that the natural results of bank
ing have q demoralizing influence upon
the community and leads to thousand
frauds which more than overballance any
of the evils which the Chronicle antici-
pates from the plan we wish to establish. "
This is not the question we raised. We
asked if it is honest and proper to pass a
law that is to make a man pay debt
twice, and it is no satisfactory answer to
say that banking has its evil tendencies,
because it can never be right to meet wrong
with wrong. But, the Union d american
further attempts to sustain itself by say
ing that banking opens the door to coun-
|
terfeiting and tends to demoralize the
people. Now we can not subscribe to these
positions, as they are laid down, because
one is partial deduction from existing
facts, and the other, substitution of effect
for cause. 1t is we'll known that to coun-
terfeit the current coin of the United
States has been habitual from the incep-
ton of the gssernment, and will continue
to the end, unless honesty can be substi-
tuted for villainy; and if the argument
just quoted, is good against bank notes, it
is equally good against gold and silver
and the total withdrawal of the former
will only have the effect to increase the
amount of counterfeit coin. But banking
tends, we are told, to demoralize the PEG
pie. In common parlance, this may be
true; but in philosophical investigation
of the subject, loose phrases lead to false
conclusions. Strictly speaking, a bank
note is as harmless as a gold dollar, and a
bank as innocent Of wrong as mint; and
the evils laid at the doors of banks are
chargeable solely to the incompetency OF
dishonesty of bank directors. A well
conducted bank, founded upon correct
principles, is a convenience, if not a bless
ing, to the community; but no safeguard
can be thrown around any institution
effective against the encroachments of cor.
ruption, unless those who WELD the insti
tuition are incorruptible-the fault is in
man, not in the institutions which he con-
trolls. And if this sort of argument is
available against banks, it is equally SC
against commerce-against the govern.
ment itself; and it is a capital error, with
II