New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-08-17

ne dct OIL tut eighth VI June, lCUi. VOL
ume three, page l20, statutes at large. tax.
ing view more consistent with the high
Importance of preserving the control of the
1 gold and silver coinage of the government,
entirely within itself, has provided that:
sIf any person, except as authorized by
law. shall hereafter make, or cause to be
made, or shall utter or pass, or attempt to
utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver, or
| other metal, or alloys of metals intended
for the use and purpose of current money,
| whether in the resemblance of coins of the
United States, or of foreign countries, or of
original design, any person so offending
shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by
a fine not exceeding three thousand dollars,
| or by imprisonment for term not exceed
ing five years, or both, at the discretion of
the court, according to the aggravation of
| the offense."
| The other defense is that the coins made
were not intended for the use and purpose
of current money. This defense rests upon
| that construction of this statute, which I'M
| derstands the language ''intended for the
| use and purpose of current money! as de-
| scrlptive of the animus of the person MAX
| ing the coin, and not descriptive of the
| metals of which the coin is made. will
not assert that such is not the true construc-
tlon-yet 1t may be asserted that other
phraseolOgy would have expressed that
idea with less ambiguity. To have said
with intent that the same shall be USED, ("
etc, ''as current money" would have
pointed beyond all doubt at the animus of
the maker while the language used in the
statute may as well, at least be understood
as descriptive of the metals forbidden to be
manufactured into coin, as of the intent of
the manufacturers in coming them.
If that be the real meaning of the words
INTENDED, etc." then the motive of the
defendants would be immaterial, as the
0ffense. would be complete by the making
into coin of any of the metals 90 intended
TOR current money
But, as have said, will not assert this
Interpretation. Taking the other, that
which was assumed by the gentlemen so
the question is presented whether the de-
PENDANTS ares shown by the testimony to
have intended the, pieces made by them to
be used as currency.
Against this proposition stands, first, an
unimpeached character, which amounts to
much when the question is one of fraudu-
lent purpose, but not much when it is one
of misjudgment as TO the right to do
particular thing.
Second-The fact that the defendants are
jewelers., and as such they have used these
apparent coins for the purpose of studs
and other articles proper to their line of
business.
Third-That the business of stamping the
pieces in question has not been conducted
in a stealthy manner.
Were there no testimony pointing to the
opposite conclusion, these would be a pro-
lection to the defendants in that constIuc-
ton of the statue of which / am now giving
them the benefit. But ON the other hand,
are these considerations supported by the
testimony.
Frst-The appearance of the gold pieces
that they have coined.
They are in shape, in size, in general ap-
pearance, like the gold coins of the govern
ment. They have upon them, as plainly i'm
pressed as the die can impress them, quar-
ter-dollars and half-dollars.
Second-One hundred dollars worth of
them were sold to witness, who is not en-
gagged in the business of manufacturing
gold into articles of use or. ornament but,
on the contrary, in conducting a billiard
and drinking saloon.
Third-Other sales are shown, but with
out specifying an amount, to party in Chi
cago, whose business is not described-to
party in st. Louis, whose business is de-
scribed as maker up of prize packages.
Fourth-There is evidence by one witness
that proposition was made by one of the
defendants, to gentleman going East, to
take some of them for distribution.
Fifth-There is evidence of an offer to sell
v.
to be used in prize packages of candy.
Sixth-There is evidence of a letter, re-
ceiyed by the defendants from firm in San
Francisco engaged in the same business,
speaking of the pieces as coin, and offering
to sell them at a certain discOunt-and there |
is evidence that, upon an assay of the gold |
pieces sent as specimens. the defendants |
found that they could make them to better |
than they could buy them.
SnypDth-Thare is evidence that they vprn |
made in much larger quantities than could |
be Necessary to supply any demand for them |
for studs or other articles of ornament or
use.
Eighth-There is evidence of their being
passed as current money by the person who
had purchased them of the defendants, and
being received by at least three different
parties as such current money.
These circumstances greatly outweigh, in
my mind, the defensive considerations to
which l have referred.
The control of the coinage of the country
by the government, both by constitutional
and statutory provisions, is shown to be re-
yarded as of the very highest interest.
Until 1864, it was deemed by Congress to
De sufficient to guard against fraudulent
mutations of the genuine coin by something
ess valuable.
But that statute is far broader 1t aims
1t the manufacture simply, whether in imi-
alton ''or of original design" and, to my
mind, clearly takes away all that ground of
license supposed to be found in the fact |
hat the coins made by the defendants are
mike those made under the authority of
he government, both in respect to their
denomination and impression.
The statute prescribes its penalty in an
lternative form, which shows that while it
J considered to be of primary Importance
o prevent any subterfuge in putting upon
he country any other circulation than that
rOYided by law, it is nevertheless regarded
5 an otfense that may vary in its turpitude
rom almost the least to almost the greatest
hade.
1t is not by any means necessary that |
hould consider this violation of law to be
f an atrocious character to reach the con-
fusion that the parties ought to be held to
ppear at court to answer it..
That the law has been violated is all that
lie testimony need disclose. This it does
iSclose conclusively.
L can easily see what grave complications :
light arise, how serious might be the o
auds, If such manufacture OF limitations s.
curront money could 90 unrebuked, and e
ence how fully is vindicated the wisdom Il
the policy embodied in the statute to t,
hich have referred. d
But, without indicating these. l content y
yself with the discharge of the duty =
lposed upon me, by saying that, while
do not propose, and am not required, Je
give expression to any sentiment in the q
ay of admeasurement of the quality of
e offense in the case before me, l can
ach no other conclusion than that the par
IS defendant should be held to answer at
e next term of the Circuit Court for this
strict.
Bonds required in the sum of two thou
nd dollars each for their aDnnaranpa af | V