Court Opinion

ID: 9841616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 19:59:51.687447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:23.898906
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Thompson,
concurring.
I concur in that part of the opinions of the Court which considers the bills issued by the bank, as. not coming under the denomination of bills of credit, prohibited by the constitution of the United States, to be emitted by the states. The two great infirmities which attended the bills of credit which circulated as money, and come within the mischief intended to be -guarded against by the constitutional prohibition; were, the want of- some real and substantial fund being provided for their payment-and redemption, and no mode provided-for enforcing payment of the same.
It is true, that in many, and perhaps in most cases where they *328were issued, provision' was made for the redemption of the bills; so far as the promise of the state, through the medium of taxation, might be said to provide the means for payment. But this was illusory, and could in no way be enforced. The bills were always signed by some person, who, upon their face, appeared to act in the character of agent of the state; and who could not, of course, be made personally responsible for their payment; and the state was not suable under the old confederation, nor under the present constitution, even before tire amendrnent in that respect, by citizens of the same state; and those would most likely be the persons who would be the principal holders of the bills issued by the state, of which they wére citizens. There being, therefore; no means of enforcing payment of such bills, their credit depended solely upon the faith and voluntary will of the state; and were therefore purely bills of credit. But that is'not the situation or character of the bills of the bank in question. There is an ample fund provided for their redemption; and they are issued by a corporation which can be sued, and payment enforced in-the courts of justice, in the ordinary mode of recovering debts.
If I considered these bank notes as bills of credit, within the sense and meaning of the constitutional prohibition; I could not concur in opinion with the majority of the Court, that they were not emitted by the state. The state is the sole owner of the stock of the bank; and all private interest in it is .expressly excluded. The state has the sole and exclusive management and direction of all its concerns. The corporation is the mere creature of the state, and entirely subject to its control; and I cannot bring myself to the conclusion, that such an important- provision in the constitution may be evaded by mere form.