The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1912-03-03
MISSOURI MONEY TRAGEDY
(coNcLUDEp)

does not exclude paper money. 1t
| does not say a word about gold, silver
or paper.
What delusion 1t would be If the
court should hold that a law exclud-
ing a paper promise to make a deed
from being circulated for deed, was
intended to exclude all paper deeds.
That the real deed may represent
property and not the shadow of 1t.
Does any one in 1912 claim, if there
were no gold and silver there could he
no constitutional money in the United
States.
The condition in 1921 was awful.
Some states chartered state banks and
authorized them to supply a promise
to pay money for money-the state
bank note, for the use and benefit of
| the bank.
Missouri did better than that. by
| an act of her legislature of June q,
| 1921, loan offices were established and
| the auditor and treasurer, for the
| benefit of the state were required TO
| issue 100000 in certificates, not over
$40 nor less than fifty cents, to be
loaned to her citizens in sums of less
than $500.
| The certificate said: This certifi-
| cate shall be receivable at the treasury
/ or any of the loan offices of the state
of Missouri in the discharge of taxes
or debts due to the state for the sum
of s., with interest for the same al
the rate of two per centum per annuIn
from this date" dated and signed).
That is coming money. There is M
cate, but the law said Missouri pledged
| the faith of the state to redeem and
! withdraw from circulation one-tenth
| of said certificates annually that made
| bills of credit of said certificates
Missouri, however. could neither
make money nor emit bills. Both
would be unconstitutional.
The law made 1t receivable by "all
| tax gatherers and other public officers
| In payment of taxes or other moneys
| due to the state, or to any county or
| town herein. Also by all Of
ficers. civil and military, in the state
in discharge Of salaries and fees OF
Office"
Missouri owned some salt springs
which she rented and the lessee was
| compelled to receive them in payment
| for salt.
Hiram Craig borrowed s199.s9 Aug
| 1, 1922, OF this money and gave his
note to Missouri for the same. When
his note was due he refused to pay IL
/ court in the state rendered a judy
ment against Craig for $237.19.
| Craig appealed to the supreme court
| of the United States and at the jan
uary term, 1880, that court said:
"A majority of the court feels con-
| strained to say that the consideration
on which the note In this case was
given is against the highest law oil
the land and that the note is utterly
| void"
These certificates were held to be
bills OF credit utterly void and notes
given for them were void.
That was Missouri's money tragedy
Missouri lost 100000 simply because
the states sovereign power to coin
money had been surrendered to con-
gress.
In this case OF Craig vs. Missouri
the court stood manfully BY the con-
stitution without any regard for the
consequences. But they did not I'M
| derstand the science of money. They
knocked out all paper money as well as
bills of credit. What a tragedy thai
| vast
There was no inherent wrong In the
certificates. The taxpayers Of Mis-
souri, needed them for money, but
| Missouri had surrendered the sole
power over money to congress and
congress had failed
There was no inherent wrong in the
United States notes of 1852 except
they were bills of credit in form but
lawful coined money in fact for II
years.
They were for the use and benefit o.
all taxpayers and although defective
were the best paper money ever coined
by congress.
The bank note makers today sael
for congressional power for private
benefit, but bank notes are Bills ..