The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1867-08-30

! nOteS payable 10 bearer, which can pass
from hand to hand by mere delivery
| do not deny. These are all securities.
and Congress are vested expressly with
power ''tO provide for the punishment
of cOunterfeiting the securities and cur
rent coin of the United States" Art.
l, Sect. s, Par. Z. This language is ac-
curate. Securities er III ternaini are
something different from money. This
view is strengthened when we find the
coin described in the same paragraph as
! current coin.
These United States notes are not Sc
curities for money which may be issued
under the authority to borrow. but thev
are "bills fcredit"-things distinct and
different from securities. That there is
such a distinction may be CLEARLY show n
by the judgments of the highest tribu-
nal which gives the law on these sub
.jects to all other courts. According to
that tribunal, bills of credit are not GER
tificates of lOan-nOr Treasury bonds or
nOtes-nor Acknowledgements ofindebt-
edness, all of which are mere securities
but bills invested with the functions of
mOney-just such bills as the United
States notes issued in pursuance of the
act of Congress in question. In Craig
VS.. the State of Missouri 4 Peters, 431, J
c.. j. Marshall, in delivering the opinion
of the court, says:
"In its enlarged and literal sense the
term bill Of credit may comprehend
any instrument by which State en-
cages to pay money at future day !;
thus includinga certificate given for
money borrowed. But the language
of the Constitution itself, and the mis-
chief to be prevented, which we know
from the history of our country, equal
ly limit the Interpretation Of the term.
The word emit is never employed in
describing those contracts by which a
State binds itself to pay money at fu-
ture day for services actually received
or for money borrowed for present use;
nor are instruments executed for such
purposes in common language denOmi-
mated bills Of credit To emit bills
of credit conveys to the mind the idea
of issuing paper TO circulate through
the community for its ordinary purposes
as money, which paper is redeemable
at future day. This is the sense in
which the terms have always been un-
derstOOd." The definition here given
was subsequently reconsidered and sus-
tanned in nriScOe VS.. the Bank of Ken
lucky, III Peters, 237.
According to this clear and authOrita-
tive exposition, what distinguishes bills
Ofcredit from such securities as are is
sued to the public creditor, is, that the
former are, and the latter are not, in
tended to circulate as money. These
United States notes, then, are not ac-
acknowledgements of debt nor securities
of the United States" but "bills of
credit"-in other wOrds-''mOney." In
deed, this act Of Congress of tebruary
., 1862, intends to leave no doubt on
that point, for it expressly declares that
they shall be "lawful money" In con-
formity, then, to the principle, assettled
by the Supreme Court in Mccullough
VS.. the State of Maryland, we must turn
to the money clause to ascertain Wheth-
er Congress had authority to make
them ''laWful money" That body
cannot, as incidental to the power to
borrow, create any kind of money,
which will not stand the test of the eX-
press power which is granted on that
subject.
If any doubt remains as to whether
the right toemit bills of credit-tO make
paper mOneV-can be exercised as Incl
dental to the bOrrowingpoWer, it ought,
as it appears to me, to be entirely dlSSl-
pated by the proceedings Of the Federal
Convention when this clause was before
them. | freely admit that the opinions
expressed in that body are not cOnclu-
sive upon the Interpretation OF the Con-
stitutiOn. That instrument is to be con-
strued like all Others-by its four corn
ers. But surely as G.. j. Marshall re-
lied con the history Of our country" in
limiting the meaning o the words bills
ofcredit,' we may resort for light to the
opinions and votes Of the men who
framed the Constitution, in deciding
whether in the words "to borrow mon
ey" was intended to be included ITO
emit bills of credit" for that is the
precise question we have here to con-
slider.
BY the ninth of the old articles OfCOn-
federation, Sec. ), it was declared that
''the United States in Congress assem-
bled, shall have authority to borrow
money or emit bills on the credit of the
United States" In the plan of the Con-
stitution, as reported to the Convention,
by the committee of detail, OF which
Mr.. Rutledge was chairman-thiS clause
was copied: "TO borrow money and
emit bills on the credit of the United
States" On the 18th of August, 1877,
in convention, Mr.. GOverneur Morris,
of Pennsylvania, moved to strike out
the words "and emit bills" There
was a debate on this motion, which is
reported by Mr.. Madison. 1t was
argued by some, and Mr.. Madison
himself among the number, that
the words had better remain with a
provision prohibiting them from being
made legal tender. Mr.. James Will
son, of Pennsylvania, afterwards one OF
the Justices ofthe Supreme Court Of the
United States appointed by President
Washington, cOntended that it would
have a most salutary influence on the
credit Of the United States ''to remove
the possibility Of paper money!" Other
members who spoke ecOncurred with him
in this view. The motion was carried,
and the words stricken out by a vote Of
nine States to two. Mr.. Madison has
added in Il foot note, that the vote by
Virginia in the affirmative was Occa-
stoned by his acquiescence, because he
became satisfied that striking out the
words would not disable the Govern
ment from the use of public notes, as
far as they could be safe and proper,
and would only cut off the pretert for q
paper currency, and particularly for
making the bill q tender either for pu6Hc
or lOricate debts. ) Elliott's Debates,
434, 435. do not know how these
proceedings may strike other minds,
but they have convinced me that the
Federal Convention understood by
'bills Of credit" not securities-certiti-