Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1900-04-18
A HISTORICAL REVIEW.
influence That Money Has Had Unou
the Public Welfare from Time
memorial,

influence That Money Has Had Upon
the Public Welfare from Time
Immemorial.
THE monetary systems of the pres
ent day are an historical devel-
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
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
free coinage act of 1866, and the in
ventio1. 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 fgments of the
mind, false, worthless, misleading
mischievous and hurtful.
''The legal, political and social char
acter of money; it's 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 it's symbols; the civic
struggles that have conferred upon
its control, and the learning that
has been devoted to it's principles by
philosophers, legislators and jurists,
surely claim for it's historical treat
ment some better preparation than
doctrines. The father of the Undue
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.
THE mixed moneys case decided
that money was public measure,
a measure of value, and that, like
other measures, it was necessary in
the public welfare that it's 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 it's support; the
Roman law, the common law and the
statutes all upheld it; it demonstrate
ed that the state alone had 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,
'oThis decision greatly alarmed the
merchants of London, and for more
than half century after it was
enunciated they were occupied with
efforts to defeat it's 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 money, but con-
fines himself strictly to it's 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
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 it's essence un-
constitutional and void. It surren-
ders both the issuance of money and
the retirement of money to the banks.
It 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 1850 years. It 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
andl impracticable of fulfillment
Several of the popes of Rome issued
decisions to the sa me effect. The
courts of Italy, France, England and
Germany all decided the same way
The learned doctors of Bologna