Norwich bulletin., 1911-02-07

due, hasn't it the same right to create it before it creates the debt (bond) :? Was not this right to create money given to congress by the people to pay the governments expenses? How could congress compel the people to pay taxes, and how could the people pay taxes (with money) if there was no money created? That is why asked if congress had the right to create mon- ey. It is very evident that the people must have money. It is also fairly evident that it must be authorized ur created, either by congress, or some other power. Some great men tell us that money is a creature, or creation of the law" History tells us that pre- viouS to the passing of the conStltu- ton each state had the right to create their own money for their own use. The states must have given up this rikht when they joined the Union. No state is allowed to create money, Is It reasonable to suppose that the states tied the hands of congress and forbade it to do that which it had a right to do, previous to joining the Union? Is it reasonable to suppose that the states authorized congress to create debts TOT the people to pay interest on,after g1v- ing congress the right aud power to furnish them with money? By giving this right to congress to create all the money there would be but one uniform kind of money, and 1t would De as good in one state as another. 1nstead of having as many different kinds as there were states in the Union. Again, each state having the right to create it's own money, for the people or mat state, isn't 1t reasonable to believe that it had the right to create a suff1- cient amount for the peoples needs? When the states granted the right to congress to create the money for them, the right to create a sufficient amount for all the states must have accompanied the right to create. Since the establishment of the government has congress obeyed the instructions given it? If it be true that congress has the right to create money and with it pay government expenses, 1t would naturally follow that the government should own or have some money Of it's own, would it not? MT. E. G. SpauIdins, a member of congress in 1861, in his Financial History of the War, the very first words said: ''The United States, at the breaking out of the re- bellion. had no national bank curren- cy, and no gold or available means in the treasury, or sub-treasury, to carry on the war for the Union, and conSe- Quently the means to prosecute the war had to be obtained upon the credit of the government, and by taxation The fundable legal tender currency was the most available form of credit which the government could use in crushing the rebellion. It was at once loan to the government without In- terest and a national currency. which was so much needed for disbursement in small sums during the pressing exi- gencies of the war. It was indispen- sably necessary. and most powerful instrumentality in saving the govern ment and maintaining the national unity"
 There you have it in a nutshell, on the best of authority. After over 70 years of legislation by congress, the government had no national bank cur rency, no gold, or any means of prose- cutting the war.
 Why did not the government borrow the money? This history tells us the government could not. What had be- come of all the money congress had created in the 70 years :? As a result of the legislation of congress about two billion dollars of United States bonds were issued. Will some one tell us what those bonds were issued for? This his tory tells us that congress created and paid out over two billions of this ma tiona Illegal tender" Today there is only about $346, 100000 of this "natianal currency" in exist ence. Can some one tell us where the balance of about $1,S00,000,000 has gone?
 J. c. VALLETTE,
 North Franklin. Conn.