Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1900-04-05
A HISTORICAL REVIEW.
Influence That Money Has Had Upon
the Public Welfare from Time
Immemorial.

| Times to the Establishment of the
| Constitution; they descend from the
principles enunciated in the great
| mixed moneys case of 1904; the cir
cumstances connected with the Span
| ish conquest of America; the Spanish
! free coinage act of 1908; the British
J free coinage act of 1866, and the in
vention of the coinage and printing
presses. 1t would, therefore, seem
necessary that writer's on the sub
! ject should possess some familiarity
with these topics. But though the
! author of the present work has con-
| suited many treatises relating to
| monetary systems he has never yet
met with one which evinced the least
. grasp of these various historical ele-
ments. Some of them contain in
formation relative to the details of
| monetary issues. These, when care
| fully collated, are of value to the
| historian, legislator and commenta-
| tor. But, for the most part, books on
| money are filed with doctrines, or
worse yet, mere dilutions of doctrines,
without history or experience to sup
| port them-doctrines based on words,
on definitions, on Pigments of the
| mind, false, worthless. misleading,
| mischievous and hurtful.
THE legal, political and social char
acter of money; its influence upon the
public welfare; the prominent place
| it occupies in the annals of the past;
| the countless experiments that have
| been made in the fabrication and
emission of its symbols; the civic
| struggles that have conferred upon
| it's control, and the learning that
| has been devoted to its principles by
| philosophers, legislators and jurists,
surely claim for it's historical treat
ment some better preparation than
| doctrines. The father of the induc-
| tive method was born more than
three centuries ago; yet it is only now
| that his method is being applied to
the study of money.
1.-The mixed moneys case decided
that money was a public measure,
| a measure of value, and that, like
other measures, it was necessary in
the public welfare that its dimensions
| or volume should be limited. defined
and regulated, by the state. The
whole body of learning left us by the
ancient and renascent world was in
voEed in this celebrated Judgment.
Aristotle, Paulus, Bodin and Budelius
were summoned to it's support: the
| Roman law, the common law and the
statutes all upheld it; it demonstrate
ed that the state alone had a right
| to issue money and to decide of what
substances it's symbols should be
made, whether of gold, silver. brass
| or pewter. Whatever the state de-
cided to be money was money. That
was the gist of it.
This decision greatly alarmed the
| merchants of London, and for more
| than half century after it was
| enunciated they were occupied with
efforts to defeat its operation. In
1859 they succeeded in getting the
matter before the star chamber; but
their plans were rejected. The rev.
| olution of 164S postponed their prof.
ects. The restoration of 1860 revived
them. Their final success dates from
1866
Although the author does not dis
cuss the politics of mor@y, but con-
fines himself strictly to its history,
yet, says the National Waterman, the
principles laid down in the celebrat ted
mixed money case, to which he fire.
quently adverts, and which he regards
as sound legal doctrine, not to be
overthrown, render it evident that
the atrocious act recently passed by
the house of representatives and
the senate is in its essence I'M
constitutional and void. It surren-
ders both the issuance of money and
the retirement of money to the banks.
1t pledges the national treasury, and,
after it, every individual and corpora
ton in the country, to the payment
of its Indebtedness in gold metal,
whether the same is current in coins
at the date of payment or not. In
other words, it makes all contracts
payable in money of the day of con-
tract, instead of in money of the
day of payment. This principle has
been the subject of discussion for
| upwards of $500 years. 1t divided
parties in Rome during the common
wealth; it divided them during the
empire; it divided them during the
middle ages: it divided them during
| the renaissance; it divided them dur
| ing the last century; and it divides
them yet. Hundreds of works have
been written on the subject and none
more learned or more replete with
sound doctrine than those which were
written during the sixteenth and
| seventeenth centuries. During this
| period many legal decisions were rem
| dered on the subject, all of them
| laying down the principle in unmis-
| taxable terms; that contracts were
only equitably payable IN moneys of
| the day of payment, and that all
| laws which bound the debtor to any
other terms were in principle unjust
| and impracticable of fulfillment.
| Several of the popes of Rome issued
decisions to the same effect. The
| courts of ItaIy. France, England and
| Germany all decided the same way.
| The learned doctors of Bologna,
Padua and the Sorbonne all approved
| the same view; and whenever the
subject was brought to the test of
reason or legality. the decision was
always in favor of permitting the
| debtor to pay his debt in the money
which happened to be current in his
| country on the day his debt was due.
| The great writers of international
| law, Grotius, Puffendorf and Vattel
all held similar views-that debts
were only equitably payable in money
of the day of payment. Notwith-
standing this opinion of the patriotic,
| the polite and the learned, there has
1 IL