The weekly standard. (Port Gibson, Miss.) 1865-1867, 1866-02-17
GIBSON, MISsIssI FEBRUARY Il, 1856 g.
Cotton Money

~ y oAlAuA .lt ~ g PAOsOet sOA 5OotCAudJ
BY o fair deduction from the law under
which the cotton notes were issued,
that there was no moral or legal obi
cation (even under the law IN question
on the part Of the planters to redeem
the cotton notes, and we will now en-
deayor to prove that there is no con-
stitutional obligation which can bind
them. il9aa As ~ g ss.sl5si
It is well known to most Of our read
ers that the Constitution of the United
States prohibits the States from issu-
ing bills of credit If, therefore, itcan
be established that the cotton notes
are bills of credit in the eye of the law,
this fact alone is sufficient to blast the
hopes of the speculator.s b asar
We shallbe brief in our quotations
and endeayor to confne our remarks
within the limits Of a newspaper lirrti artti-
ila1L@l4Gss gIfa9Bg9at % sA5s1 II 10 [.7
ITcelieF.s Tcie.s lJiene9 ai lh50a Ie4an ,s8I1gnq Yj
The, general rule laid down by the
Supreme Court of the United States, in
the case of Craig VS. the State Of Mis-
souri, Chief Justice Marshall deliver
ing the opinion of the court, in regard
to bills of credit within the meaning of
the Constitution, islas follows: Wo.ia4
ao'H the prohibition means anything,
If the words are not empty sounds, ] it
mus must comprehend the emission of any
paper medium by State Government
forthe purpose Of common circulation. .
In the case of Briscoe VS.. the Bank
Of the Commonwealth Of Kentucky,
the Supreme Court of the United
States. gave this definition of a bill Of
eredit:E uoda aIalgs tl4aa 9aiiIaget.
-a'.A paper issued by d sovereign
power containing o pledge Of its faith
and designed to circulate as money
There are three points here stated.
LIST. An issue by the State I'd. A
pledge Of the faith Of the State, and
'3d, An l intent ifEl fhat the the paper shall 81
culate as money. lsgTo7 sd} tad3 n
1.-The cotton notes are clearly en-
braced within this definition. 9i 'g'5,h
,1st.. They were by the State; I'd
They were receivable Tor all public dues
except the military tax; and 3D.. When
so received it was provided that the
State might reissue them as, money. II
this respect the case is stronger thar
that presented il, the case of Craig vs.
the State of Missouri.
1.-The cotton notes were lindeniably
made gtos be received as money adj
yanced nscotton, and lief course were
not restricted in. their circulationz & AS
/ tofthe other point-4was thereia pledge
Of the faith of the State2 There was
Each note contains an express promise
on the part Of the State to pay the
amount out of the, proeeedss4of the
amount of cotton pledged. It was moi
ageneral promise, but a promise tt
ray out Of Il particular fund. But thil
does not alter the case, II. s. @sae;.ed
In two cases the question has beer
presented to the Supreme Court of the
United States, whether notes issued BY
banks wholly owned by the State were
/ bills of credit And in both instances
it was decided hat9they were not5 be
cause the holder might enforce hi
claims by legal proceedings against III
bank In other words, he was not com
PEELED to look to the State for payment
One of these cases was that of aBrisco,
VS.. the Bank of Kentucky. The othe.
that Of Darlington VS.. the State Banl
! of Alabama. In the latter case, tn
court ruled that, sThere is an impor
tant difference betweenthe notes ofth
bank and bills Of credit. Whateye
agency may be employed to issue
bill of credit, the State promises to pa.
the bill, or to receive it IN payment Q
public dues, and when apastscularf fun
vas designated out Of which it shoul'
|, be paid, it depended upon the faith G
Of the State whether such fund shoul
be SO appropriated % igaa zae 9siss9
*folF *4T III fo*iopia x PSI Y
There Is no fund or property .ehic 'i
he holder can reach By .lstdicla process
, Such an instrument is altogether dii
ferent in form and substance from th
notes issued by the Branch Bank {
Mobile. Every description ofpropert
managed by the directors Of the Ban
was subject to judicial process by i
! creditors, and in such procedure th
State in its sovereign capacity coul
not interfere sG gsa sslsize4f sseal
us there any fund or property in th
present case which the holder Of Il
cotton notes can reach BY Judicial pr
eess2 Is not everything dependent Q
the faith Of the State The State mus
{ collect, and the State must pay, and
!, - fcsl j ID ~ i ~. ! ~ o.. Who,