The Winslow mail., 1900-05-10
lDG DuDI!G NGllgIC 1D9t ltS QiWODE!OOo

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
voSed 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 demonstrate
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 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 166O 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 its history
yet, says the National Waterman, the
principles laid down in the celebrated
mixed money case, to which he fre-
quently aIiverts. 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. 1t 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
tion in the country, to the payment
of its indebtedness in gold metal.
whether the same is current i'm 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. Ehis 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 fultillment.
Several of the popes of Rome issued
decisions to the same effect The
courts of Italy, France, England and
Germany all decided the same way.
he l6aTHcu OOCtOIS VI bOIOSIld,
Padua and the ,Sorbonne all approved
the same view; and whenever the
subject was drought 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 writer's of international
law. Grotius, PHifendorf and Vattel
ail 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
nsv5r bzcn wanting an avid class who
have sought to pin down the people
to the payment of specific moneys
and this class has from time to time