Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1858-09-09

back, for moment. Mr.. Chairman
and see what the authority, given il
the Constitution of United States is
One of the clauses of that instru
ment declar. s "that the States shat
not emit bills Of credit" At tina
day, according to my reading, bills o
credit were as well understood to b.
paper money, as gold and silver art
understood to be money now. TX
sustain this assertion will read al
extract from the Address delivered
to the Legislature Of Maryland, rela'
tive to th proceedings of the Gener'
al Convention held at Philadelphia,
in 1857, by Luther Martin, Attor.
.ney General Of Maryland, and one
of the Delegates in said Convention.
He says:
by the tenth section of the Con-
stituaion every State is prohibited
from emitting bills Of credit. As it
vas reported by the committee in
detail, the States were only prohibit
ed from emitting them without the
consent of Congress; but the Con-
vention was so smitten with the PA
PER MONEY dread, that they insisted
the prohibition shonld be absolute
1t was my opinion, sir, that the States
ought not to be totally deprived OF
the right to emit bills of credit, and
that, as We had not given an authori-
ty tothe General Government for that
purpose, it was the more necessary to
retain it in the States. n y
And it was my opinion, if this pow
er was not to DO exercised by State
without the permission of the Gener-
al Gocerrmenf. it ought to be salts
factory even to those who were the
most haunted by the apprehension Of
PAPER MONEY. l therefore though hit it
my duty to vote against this part OF
the SYSTEM Elliott Ds6ates, rol.
i. page s76. -
Mr.. j. continued: By reference
to the debates in the convention of
the State from which you, Mr.. Chair
man, came, assembled for the ratifica-
ton of this Federal Constitution, you
will find that one Of the first and par
amount objections raised against that
ratification was, that it did prohibit
the emission of bills Of credit by the
States. 1t was contended by some
of the delegates there, that if the
Constitution vas ratified with that
provision in it, not only would itpro-
hihit the further emission Of bills Of
credit, or "paper money!" as they
we're termed, but that Congress could,
aud in all probability would. pass a
retrospective law in relation to the
paper money then in circulation
This, it is true, was not the only rea.
son or objection urged against the
ratification of the Constitution, but
it was ono Of the greatest obstacles to
il. And when the Convention Of
that State came finally, as they did,
to the resolution neither to reject nor
to ratify the Constitution ofsthe Uni
ted States, they adopted another res
oIution. advising the State authorize.
to call in and redeem its paper at as
early a period as practicable. I viii
read an extract from a speech deliv
cred in the Convention of North Car
DINA, on the adoption of the Federal
Constitution, by Mr.. Maclaine. 4
ain the 10th section Of the ] st ar
ticle, it is provided, among other re
strictions, that no State shall emf
bills of credit, make anything bu
gold and silver coin tender in pay
ment Of debts, or pass any law impair
| ing the obligation of contracts
Now, sir, this has no Retrospective
view. 1t looksto futurity.
1t does not look back. but forward. =
1t does not destroy the PAPER NONE,
which is now actually made, but pre-
vents us from making any more.--E Ell
hott's Debates, col A, pages 173-4
! / will also read extracts from
speech of Mr.. Dayie, also a membe
Of the Federal Convention, in TIL
/ Convention of North Carolina:
/ "If the States had been conpelle'
to sink the paper money instantly
the remedy might be worse than tn
disease. AS we could no. put al
Immediate end to it, we were cor
tented with prohibiting its future in
crease, looking forward to its ENTIR
] REIMBURSEMENT when the States tina
had an emission circulating shoul
be able to call it in by gradual RI