Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-03-13

bIn has been IN the main devoted to
the constitutionality or demonstrations
atty Of "a proposed issue of Comp
troller's warrants. The gentlemen op-
posed to the bill have insisted with
great elTnestness, and some show of
authorities, that these warrants would
be "bills Of credit" and, therefore, In
violation of the Constitution of the
United States Without regard to the
merits or dement's of this particular
bill as a mater Of policy, we desire to
enter a protest against Democratic
sanction being given to the view that
such issues would be bills Of credit. If
the bill is to be defeated, let it be upon
some other ground.
We are forced to take this position
because We believe that the adoption Of
a contrary doctrine by the Democracy
would result in a complete and final
surrender Of our State and National
finances to the National Bank or some
other exclusively Federal system.
Once define "bills of credit" to be
what the Federalists of the past and
the Republicans Of the present claim
that they are and, then, farewell, a
long farewell to all State rights theo-
ries Of banking and currency. Give to
the United States the complete control
Of our banks and finances and, then,
adieu TO all State rights upon any and
every subject.
What is a "bill of credit" The def
milton adopted by our own Supreme
Court in the case Of The Western and
Atlantic Railroad vs.. Taylor, HE'S
kell, is that given by Chancellor Kent;
Bills Of credit, within the purview
of the Constitution Of the United
States prohibiting the emission of
them, are declared to mean promis0Ty
notes issued by a State government ex-
/ clnsively on the credit of the State,
AMI intended to circulate through the
community for its ordinary purposes
as money, and for the payment Of
which the faith Of the State is pledged"
We presume no one viii insist that
a COmptToller's warrant issued on the
Treasury, receivable In taxes or other
dues to the State, is a promissory note
any more, nor, indeed, as much, as the
check Of a depositor on his funds in
bank.
Hon. R. NJ 7. Hunter, in his "Plan
Of a Constitutional Currency" sub
mitted to Gov. Kemper, Of Virginia, in
December last, reviewed all the author
tiles and arguments which have been
presented heretofore and repeated in
the present discussion in the Senate.
We regret that we have not space to
copy his article in full He said:
1T has been objected that the pro-
vision herein proposed falls within the
constitutional prohibition to the States
10 emit bills Of credit. But a careful
examination Of the question it is be-
lieved viii remove this objection. 1t
has been a matter of much difficulty to
decide what is a bill % credit, within
the meaning Of the constitution. Judge
Marshall, IN the case Of Craig vs..
the State Of Missouri, Peters, 43I-2.
which was decided by four out Of seven
judges, said that 10 emit bills Of credit
conveys 10 the mind the idea Of issuing
paper intended to circulate through the
community for its ordinary purposes as
mOn-y, which paper IS redeemable at a
future day. This IS the sense IN
which the terms have always been
understood. Judge Mclean, in Briscoe
vs.. Bank OF Kentucky, II Peters, p.
3l4, says the definition which does in
clude all classes Of bills of credit emit
ted by the colonies or States, Is a paper
issued by the sovereign power, con-
tanning a pledge OF its faith and de-
signed to circulate as money Mr..
Madison, IN a letter hereafter to be
quoted, says the Constitution meant
such bills as were issued with a pro-
vision that they should perceived as a |
legal tender. In the opinion Of Marshall |
and Mclean, the bills were not only to |
circulate as money but to contain a
pledge Of the faith Of the State to re-
deem them at some future time with |
money. Both attributes were neces- |
sary to lead to the mischiefs enumer-
ated by Mr. Madison IN the 44th num-
Der, p. 207 of the FcderaIist, and both !
must have existed to render the bills |
unconstitutional"
From the foregoing it appears that |
to be bill Of credit the paper issued !
must not only circulate as money OF be |
intended for that purpose, but must |
also contain q pledge Of the faith of |
the State TO redeem them at some |
future time nth money" Mr.. Hunter
in speaking Of the decision of Craig VS..
State Of Missouri says:
Long since that decision was given
a letter from Mr.. Madison to Mr.. G. J.
Ingersol has been published. In this
letter Mr.. Madison asserts positively
that the bill Of credit intended to be
prohibited was one issued as a legal |
tender. If this evidence Of Mr.. Mad
ison. published in 1853, had been ac.
cessible to the court is It probable that
Judge Marshall would have preferred
bis own inference from the eircumstan-
tial history Of the past to the positive
testimony Of Mr.. Madison, who helped
to form th. Constitution, was contem-
Porary with its creation and conversant
with all the facts which led to its form
alton and adoption?"
Our object in referring to this sub
jet is simply to forewarn Democrats
that they may not be too easily led into
the train Of argument which ancient
and modern Republicans
have so persistently used to uphold
the strong arm of the General Gov
eminent" with fatal effect TO all the re-
served rights Of the States.
-S S
RAILROAD MANAGEMENT IN MAS
SACHUSETTs.
The Massachusetts, Railroad Com.
of whom Mr.. Charles Fran