rejected ! It is expressly stated by the Attorney General of Maryland, that a majority of the convention l- were willing to risk any political evil, rather than admit the idea of a paper emission in any possible case f and that they (the convention) “ erased that clause from the system?’ And again, when speaking of the extension of the prohibition to the States, he remarks : that ££ the convention were so smitten with the paper money dread, that they insisted the prohibition should be absolute!” So that both Congress and the States, as we have already seen, are prohibited by the constitution from “emitting bills of credit;” or from issuing paper money, £! in any possible case.” It is contended by Mr. Gallatin, in his “ Considerations on the Currency,” &c. that bank bills and bills of credit are one and the same thing. He remarks: “ the constitution of the United States prohibits every State from issuing bills of credit; now, the bills emitted by a bank.” he adds, “are to all intents and purposes bills of credit.” And hence he concludes, that the State which creates such bank, violates the constitution. If the bills issued by State banks, are to all intents and purposes “bills of credit,” in the constitutional sense, as Mr. Gallatin contends—and I am not disposed to dispute the point with him at present—then would bills issued by a United States bank, also be bills of credit. If a State, therefore, by issuing bills of credit, or by incorporating a bank for that purpose, violates the constitution, Congress by doing the same thing, equally violates that instrument; because, as has already been shown, the power to “ emit bills of credit” was withheld from Congress as well as from the States. The reason why a prohibitory clause was not incorporated into the constitution in relation to the United States, as well as to the State Governments, is obvious. By the articles of confederation, Congress were expressly authorized to “ emit bills of credit.” This power had been exercised by Congress, and the evil effects resulting from it, in the shape of continental money, were in evidence before the members of the convention at the time of framing the constitution. The framers of the constitution, admonished by the history of the past, wisely and patriotically endeavored to guard their country from a similar evil in future, by excluding from the new constitution, the power which had been conferred on Congress by the articles of confederation, as well as by prohibiting the exercise of that power to the State Governments. Congress are, by the constitution, not only deprived of the power of “ emitting bills of credit,” or of “ issuing paper money in any possible case,” but expressly limited in the exercise of their power, with regard to the currency, to the coining of gold and silver, and to the regulation of the value of foreign coin. And when Congress have done this, they have done all that the constitution requires, ox permits them to do on the subject of the currency. Having shown that the power to “ emit bills of credit” is not delegated to Congress, and that such was the “ dread of paper money” entertained by the convention, that they withheld from Congress the power to issue, or cause to be issued, such money “in any possible case.” I might dismiss this part of the subject without further remark; but as it is my wish to put an end to all doubt and cavil, 1 will, even at the hazard of using tedious repetitions, again refer to the important fact, that it was repeatedly proposed in convention to vest Congress with power to grant charters of incorporation, and that all such propositions were rejected in every instance, and under every modification. This position has been fully esta lbs
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=