Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1867-09-20
DURBORROW LUTE Edliors and PrOprIetors.

1 ted power. Three cases are stated as exam
PIES of substantive powers, but clearly only
as examples. We have 10 right 70 say that
any one Of the express powers Is more sub
stantiye aud independent than another
Their very expression authoritatively stamps
their character If. therefore, power Is
delegated, but 10 terms which import q lim-
itQtion or qualification, 1t cannot be exer-
| cised rs Incidental to some other power, dis
regarding the limitation or qualification an
neXed TO the express grant iuaeed, such
limitation or qualification may be consider
cd as q prohibition against the exercise OF
that power in any other way, aud, therefore,
within the limit which the Supreme Court
places upon the discretion Of Congress IN
the enunciation Of the general principle,
viz: that Congress cannot employ meas
ure, however necessary and proper It may
be for carrying into effect some express
power, If that measure has been prohibited.
pass now to the consideration of those
grants, from which by the aid Of the last
paragraph of the enumeration, it is con-
tended that Congress has authority to Is
sue what the act calls United States
notes, and to make theu a legal tender in
payment Of all debts, public and private.
l. 10 regulate commerce with foreign
nations aud among the several States and
with the Indian tribes, Art. /. sect. s.
paragraph 8.
1t must be admitted that standards Of
value, aud ofweight and measures are means
very appropriate and adapted to the ragula-
tion of commerce. But then we have IN
this enumeration clause which expressly
grants and defines the authority TO create
such standards. Ii i directs of what they
shall consist, Congress cannot make auoth-
or kiud as Incidental to the regulation Of
commerce
With equal piausibility might it be pre-
tended chat, for the regulation Of commerce,
/ Congress could lay duties, imPosts, and eX-
cises, aad pass bankrupt laws, Such meas
ures might be very appropriate and adapted
TO that end Yet surely it viii not be
maintained that, assuming these powers as
incidental, Congress could disregard the
rule OF uniformity, which limits and qualities
the express delegation of them. This quail
Ilioatlon Is, IN fact, prohlbluon OF any du-
ties imposts, or excises, which shall not be
uniform throughout the United States-Of
any laws on the subject Of bankruptcies
which shall not, mike manner, be uniform
throughout the United States Art. /,
sec 8. par IA. These cases present per-
feet illustration of the soundness otthe limit
to the discretion of Congress, prescribed Dy
the Supreme Court, that a substantive pow
eF shall not be exercised as incidental. j do
not, however, consider them as any more
perfect than the very ease before us. II the
power % create standard OF value and
medium OF exchange Is expressly delegated,
bat confined by its terms, as We will present
Is see that it Is, TO colus-toreign or dOmes-
tlc--it Is a prohibition Of any other kind Of
money. Congress cannot, under the preteXt
OF regulating commerce, Infringe the prOhI-
5itou thus laid on them.
H. To borrow money on the credit OF
tho United States. Art , sect. S, per. , J
1t has been argued that under this clause
Congress may issue these United States
notes, because they are only acbnowledg-
meuts Of debt iu a negotiable form, and IN
order tOgiVe them greater credit make them
q legal tender. That there may be constI-
tutionally issued to the public creditor ceTtl-
icates OF the amount due, transferable by
assigumcnt-0r bonds or notes payable to
bearer which can pass from hand to hand
bv mere delivery do not deny. These
are all securities. and Congress Is vested
expressly with power ITO provide Tor the
punishment OF counterfeiJing the securities
and current coin Of the United States.
Art. T., sec. S, par, g. This language Is ac-
curate Securities GU "a terHllu are some
ching different from money. This view Is
strengthened when we hud the coin described
These United States notes are not secuu-
ties for money which may be issued under
authority 20 borrow, but they are bills OF
credit things distinct and digGTent from
securities. That there Is such distinction
may be clearly shown by the Judgments Of
the highest tribunal, which gives the law
on these subjects to all other courts. Ac-
/ cordng 60 that tribunal, bills Of credit are
not certificates Of ioan-not treasury bonds
or notes-not acknowledgment ofindebted-
ness, all Of which are mere securities, but
bills invested with the functions Of money
just such bills as the United States notes is
f sued in pursuance Of the act Of Congress in
question In Craig VS.. the State Of Mis-
souri, "A Peters 43l), Z. j. Marshall, IN de
llvcr.ng the opinion OF the court, says: In
its enlarged aud perhaps literal sense the
term bill Of credit may comprehend any
instrument, bY which State engages TO pay
money at future day; thus including GER
tifcate given for money borrowed. But the
language of the Constitution ITSELF and the
mischief TO be prevented, which we know
from the history Of our country equally
limit the interpolation Of the term The
word emit is never employed in describing
. those contracts by which State binds itself
+ 10 pay money at future day for services
actually received or for money borrowed for
present use; nor are instruments executed
for such purposes in common language de-
nominated bills Of credit To emit,bilis
of credit conveys 60 the mind the Idea Of
Issuing paper intended 70 circulate through
the community for rs ordinary purposes 0s
at0ucy which paper is redeemabie at a fu-
ture day This Is the sense in which the
terms have always been understood The
definition here given was subsequently re-
| considered and sustained IN Briscoe vs.. The
Bank Of Kentucky, . Peters, 257.
According to this clear and authoritative
exposition, what distinguishes bills OF
credit from such securities as are issued to
the public creditor is that the former are,
and Jhe latter are not intended 10 circulate
rs money. These United States notes,
gdau, are not acknoEleig gments ol debt nor
securities oi the United States, but bills
OF credit; in other words, money. In
deed, this act Of Congress OF February 25,
1862, intends to leave no doubt on that
point for it expressly declares that they
shall be lawful money. In conformity,
then to the principle, as settled by the Su-
) rrgme Court in Mccullough vs.. the State
, of Maryland, re must turn to the money
clause to ascertain whether Congress had
authority to Ma ke them lawful money
That body cannot, as incidental to the
power 20 borrow, create any kind Of money,
r which viii not stand the test Of she express
power which is granted on that subject.
Il any doubt remains rs % whether the
rjghtt0 emit bills of crciIt--to make paper
-, .r,a-,..,r4 { q pF.rf Sai rs incidental fO he