The Winslow mail., 1900-04-12
DECENTRALIZATION.
An Argument Showing the UncOnstf-
tutiOnaIity of the Act
of 1873.


yer, unconstitutional?
Section s, of article 1, of the con-
stitution, says: Congress shall have
power to coin money, regulate the
value thereof, and of foreign coin;
and fix the standard of weights and
measures" Thus, is it not that money
must be coined ?-and it is necessary
that some substance must be used for
coinage; and also, that if it is coined
out of more than one substance, and
each and every substance out of which
government coins money does not
have equal rights; is not treated by
the government exactly the same as
the government treats other SUBJ
stances out of which it coins money,
can the coin that may be stamped
from such substance which does not
possess these same rights be called
money as defined by this article in the
constitution? That it may be made
Cor the right and power of govern
ment to issue) legal tender is not
questioned; but only, is it money
that is, coined money, as defined by
the constitution? Is it not an accept
ed fact, that, at the time of the adop-
ton of the constitution by the 13 col
onies-thus making one government
composed of states-that the metals
gold and silver were the substances
acknowledged by the colonies (and by
the world generally to be materials
out of which money was to be coined;
and that it was these metals that this
article in the constitution had refer
ence to? In proof of this congress
very shortly after the beginning of
the existence of the government, April
2, 1892, passed an act providing for the
free coinage of gold and silver at
ratio as prescribed in that act-to-w1t,
Is to 1-both metals having equal
rights. Each metal, when coined &C.
cording to this law, became money.
In further proof that gold and silver
and that only gold and silver-were
intended as the substances out of
which money was to be coined accord
ing to this article, the constitution
prohibited, in the same article, section
10, the states from making anything
but gold and silver coin tender in
payment of debts and prohibited the
states from coming, reserving to the
general government alone that pow
er. Now the government and the
states have at various times since
the adoption of the constitution issued
obligations and borrowed money.
And these obligations and these prom
ises to repay money borrowed have al
ways been expressed in coin-some of
the obligations of the states may have
been expressed in lawful money. Has
it not always been understoOd-ha it
ever been questioned-that the word
coin as so used has always meant gold
and silver? Thus it must be an in
disputable fact that gold and silver
were the substances out of which
money was to be coined by the gov
ernment according to this article IN
the constitution: and also an indis-
putable fact that should one metal
be deprived of any rights that were
accorded to the other metal, be treat
ed by the government any differently
other; the coin of the metal so de-
prived was not money, the same as
the coin of the other metal was, as
money is defined by this article in the
constitution? For the intent and
meaning of this giving con-
gress the power to coin money and
regulate the value thereof, as here
proved-was not gold or silver, but
gold and silver.
Alexander Hamilton and Thomas
Jefferson both expressed this idea at
the time when the first coinage law
was passed by congress. Daniel Web
ster in his address to the senate De-
cember 21, 1886, said: II am certain
ly of the opinion, then, that gold and
silver at rates fixed by congress con-
stitute the legal standard of value in
this country, and that neither coE
gress nor any state has authority to
establish any other standard or to dis
place this" Andrew Jackson said the
same thing in his farewell address.
James G. Blaine in his speech in the
senate February Z, 1878, said: Il be-
lieve gold and silver coin to be money
of the constitution. No power was
conferred on congress to declare that
either metal should not be money.
Congress has, in my judgment, no
power to demonetize silver any more
than to demonetize gold. No power to
demonetize either any more than to
demonetize BOTH
Now, the law that was passed Feb
ruary, 1873, did demonetize silver.
Took away from silver the right and
power to be money-a right and pow
er it had always formerly possessed
equally with gold-thus reserving to
gold alone the power to be money at
the will of the holder. Thus silver
ceased to be money as defined by the
constitution. For is it not an indis-
putable fact that, if person possess
ing both gold and silver can have his
gold coined into money, thus the gold
possessing all the powers of money,
and canont have his silver coined into
money-thus depriving silver of the
powers of money, a power it always
| formerly possessed, the intent and
meaning of the constitution, wherein
it gives congress the power to coin
money, regulate the value thereof.
changed? The question naturally
aris IS how are obligations which are
made payable in coin-or in money
to be settled? Whether these obliga-
| tions be issued by the government