The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1900-04-06
A REVIEW.
influence That Money Has Had Upon
the Public Welfare from Time
Immem0rtaI.

ent day are an historical devcl-
opment," says Alexander Del Mar, in
his new work on the History Of
Money in America from the Earliest
Times to the Establishment of the
Constitutions" they descend from the
principles enunciated in the great
mixed moneys case of 1904; the cir
c~umstances connected with the Span
ish conquest of America; the Spanish
free coinage act of 1905; the British
free coinage act of 1906. 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 on
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
n are filled with doctrines. or
worse yet, mere dilutions of doctrines,
without history or experience to sup
port them-doctrines based OF 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
its control, and the learning that
has been devoted to its principles by
philosophers. legislators and jurists,
surely claim for its historical treat
ment some better preparation than
doctrines. The father Of the Undue
tive method was born more than
three centuries ago; yet ii is only now
that his method is being applied to
the study of money.
The mixed moneys case decided
that money was a public measure,
a 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
voked in this celebrated judgment,
Aristotle, Paulus, Bodin and Budelius
were summoned to its support; the
Roman law. the common law and the
statutes all upheld it; it ~demonstrat-
ed that the state alone had a right
to issue money and to decide Of what
substances its 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 TIE
merchants Of London, and for more
than half a century after 1t was
cnunciated 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 l64s postponed their prof
ects. The restoration Of 1900 revived
them. Their final success dates from
1866"
Although the author does not dis
cuss the politics of money. but con
lines himself strictly to its history,
yet. says the National Waterman, the
principles laid down in the celebrated
mixed money case, to which he fire.
quently adverts, and which he regards
rs sound legal doctrine. not to be
overthrown, render il evident that
the ntrocious act recently passed by
the house Of representatives nnd
the senate il in its essence un-
constitutional and void. 1t sirrcn-
ders both the issuance of money and
the retirement Of money to the banks.
II pledges the national treasury. and,
after il. 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 OF not. In
other words. ii 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. II divided
parties in Rome during the common
wealth; il divided them during the
empire; IL divided them during the
middle ages; it divided them during
the renaissance; it divided them dur
ing the last century; and II divides
them yet. Hundreds o. works have
been written on the subject and none
more learned or more repletc with
sound doctrine than those which were
written during the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries. During this
period many legal decisions were rem
dcrcd on the subject. all Of then
laying down the principle In unmis'
taxable terms; that contracts were
only euuitablv payahle IN n O1