 | CHAPTER XIII. Errata, or, The works of Will. Adams |  |
13. CHAPTER XIII.
Emma...Atonement...Debate...Power of the states under the
constitution...Bills of credit...Bank paper...State charters unconstitutional.
I saw Emma the following night; and told her, by
way of accounting for my stern and troubled look, all
that I could, without betraying the secret of my sister,
which concerned Hammond.
Her mild eyes darkened; and her hand, as I held it,
endeavouring, as usual, to keep my fingers upon the
pulse, grew suddenly cold. I pressed it---it was passive---I
was half angry. I looked up, and there was a
suppressed agitation about her chaste mouth, as if her
very heart were in labour.
“Emma,” said I, as soon as I could speak; “you
blame me, I feel that you do. What shall I say to
you? Do you upbraid me?”
“No, no,” she replied, “I cannot upbraid you, but
—(she faltered) I am afraid that you do not fully
know Mr. Hammond. He is exceedingly your friend;
and, and—pray, if the difference be not irreconcilable
—pray meet him, as a friend.”
I pressed the hand of the dear pleader to my lips
—“Emma!---I will. I will see him tomorrow; and---”
(I did not say what I would do; but I determined to
make an atonement equal to my offence.)
She mistook me, and threw a look of alarm at me,
as she saw me rise---“do not go, yet---not yet---it is
not your hour.” Her sister sat opposite to her; and I
would have given the world to be alone with her, for
one moment; and even to part less abruptly; but I
could not. I was impatient to retrieve my own good
opinion; and my impatience, to all but Emma, looked
like anger. “Good night, madam! good night; good
night!” said I, to the whole family, in a less, cordial
tone, I am sure, than usual, for I saw them recover
themselves, with rather more steadiness than common;
into mine; and, as I stood, with my back to the family,
I set my lips, fervently to her smooth, cold forehead,
to which the blood leaped, as to a wound; and whispered,
“good night!”
That same evening, I went to Hammond's room,
but he was away. I waited with impatience till morning;
but, when I had taken my breakfast, he was already
in court. I went there---spoke to him; gave
him my hand; and he took it, much as usual; but---perhaps
it was suspicion in me---I thought, with a movement
of haughtiness about the mouth, that was not common.
I sat down; and was not a little astonished
soon after, when he addressed the court---at the profound
attention with which he was listened to. His
language was that, which I had always heard him recommend;
precisely what he would have used in conversation;
yet, with this difference, that he talked better
in conversation; nay, I never heard him talk so
badly, until he had fairly entered into the debate; and
then, I was carried long with him, by his bold, distinct,
vehement way, just as if he were in conversation.
I am an excellent stenographer yet; but then, I was unrivalled;
and, willing to pay him some compliment, (for
I had heard him often say, that he wondered how he
should argue in public; that he could not write, or study
his language; that he felt a great concern upon the
subject; and that he should not be able, for years, to
enforce the same attention in court, that he did in conversation.)---I
employed myself in taking notes of his
speech. It was nearly as follows. After some discussion
about the propriety of entering into the main
question, at once; it was permitted to the counsel, to
touch upon it.
“The court have been informed that this is a motion,
under rule, to shew cause upon a quo warranto.
Without entering into a repetition of what has already
been said, I shall proceed, in the shortest and plainest
possible way, to reply to our antagonist; and enter at
once, briefly, upon the merits of the great question, in
support of the following propositions.
1. That no state of the union hath a right to incorporate
a banking company, with authority to issue
bank paper.
2. That all such incorporations; and all acts done
in consequence thereof; and under the authority of the
same, since the present constitution of the United
States was adopted, are unconstitutional and void.
3. That this is the only legitimate mode of bringing
the question before the court.
The clause upon which I depend is this: art. 1. sec.
10. of the U. S. constitution—no state shall emit bills
of credit.
In the first place, it will not be disputed that the letter
of this constitution, shall always yield to the spirit;
and that, when about to be interpreted, the common rules
of construction are to be regarded: the evil meant
to be remedied; and the intention of them, that
framed and adopted it. If these preliminaries are to
be disputed, I must stop—for the constitution, which
is not a code of laws, but a simple declaration of
what are considered fundamental principles, will become
a dead letter.
What then was the evil to be provided against, by
the new constitution? It was this—one that had blackened
and dishonoured the reputation of the whole country;
and had shaken the confederacy to its foundation.
Some of the states had issued their paper money,
till it was utterly worthless; thereby raising a revenue,
too secret for our jealous forefathers; and taxing their
neighbours in a manner too little likely to alarm them:
and dishonouring the whole coalition by their breach of
faith.
Look at the constitution. You see, with what scrupulous
sagacity the great men that wrought it out,
have provided against an ascendency so dangerous.
They will not permit any state, to keep armies or navies
in time of peace, without the consent of congress.
Why? Because two or three of the maritime states;
and two or three of the inland ones would soon become
armed rivals.
Neither would they permit, to any state, the power
of levying imposts. And why? Because that would
give a direct, and constantly accumulating secret, encroaching
ascendency to the importing states. It would
endanger the equality; if not the safety, of the whole
family. It would give them the power of taxing their
inland brethren, at pleasure.
But, at the same time, they do permit to each state,
the power of direct, open taxation; because they know
that such a power can never be dangerous, to a thoughtful
and free people.
The evil then, is clear. The purpose and intention
of the framers were, of course, to prevent a repetition
of it—to maintain the equality of the states—to prevent
a secret, and dangerous, and constantly augmenting
system of taxation; and, thereby, to keep down the
worst propensity of their nature; their appetite for
dominion.
“But,” say our opponents—“these Bank bills are not
Bills of credit—and are not emitted by the state.”
What!—are we to quibble, upon such a point as that!
What are Bills of credit? Are they not, any, and every
kind of circulating paper medium? Qualify them, as you
may, by one name and another; certificates—banknotes—bank
bills—treasury notes—or what you please;
all are Bills of credit. Because, they tend to obtain credit—and
revenue; and, by their ultimate destruction,
loss, or depreciation, to tax a people, in the most oppressive,
though wasteful, and secret manner.
But, we are told that, they are not emitted by the
state!” That is false. They are emitted by the state.
Qui facit per alia, facit per se—what is done by my authority,
is done by myself.
Is not a tax raised as securely, and as certainly?—
first, by a bonus to the state, which is not paid by the
people at first, for that would stir up their hot blood,
to remonstrance—and, secondly, to the incorporation,
by the people—which thereby enriches the state, a second
time.
Is there not the same danger of a breach of faith?
the same likelihood that more paper would be issued,
of the larger, and more powerful members, to be guarded
against?—as if the Bills of credit were issued, directly,
from the state treasury.
No. I am wrong—it is not the same!—it is ten
thousand times greater. A state has some reputation;
some sense of justice; which, in the vicissitudes of election,
will appear at last; but Banking incorporations—
I appeal to all our experience---are to be restrained in
their issues, only by destruction or inability. But
grant that each has the same desire, to inundate a country
with bank paper---the state itself---and the incorporations
established by the state. I would ask, which
of them has the most power; the most activity; the greatest
number of agents and partisans?---nay, the greater
credit?—I answer, without hesitation, that the latter
have. No state in the union, can issue, by her own direct
authority, directly from her own treasury, so large
an amount, of bank paper, as two or three great incorporations
can, when excited by a spirit of rivalry. And
why? Because the most ignorant man, among us, dreads
to have his remedy against a sovereign state; he would
prefer the note of many an individual, to the plighted
honour of a whole state. In the first place, he has a
short and certain remedy; against the state, a slow and
uncertain one.
But, be that as it may, there is yet a point, upon which
the subject may be rested for ever. On that, I depend.
It is maintained that a state, though she may not emit
bills of credit, directly, from her own treasury, may
give an authority, (which it is acknowledged, that she,
herself does not possess) to others; whereby, they may
do, in effect, what She cannot do, provided that they will
change the name, from Bills of credit, to Bank bills, or
bank notes.
If this doctrine be sound, what will become of these
provisions? “No state shall keep ships of war, in time
of peace—without the consent of congress.” “No state
shall coin money.”
Suppose that a state authorize a company of individuals,
to build and keep sloops of war—gun boats—fire
without the consent of congress. Would it be right?—
Would she have the power? There is no interference
with the words of the constitution. The spirit only, is
set at nought. Who has the hardihood to maintain
that she may? Yet, the principle is the same. If a
state may authorize an incorporation to issue paper
money—she may authorize the same incorporation to
build and keep, in time of peace, without the consent of
congress, all sorts of warlike, naval armament, except
ships of war; nay, even ships of war—if it be not an infringement
of the constitution, to authorize another, to
do, what she cannot do herself.
So too, a state may constitute a privileged company
of men; and authorize them to coin money—receiving a
share of the profits in advance, under the name of bonus;
and, when arraigned, put her hand, fearlessly upon
the constitution; and say, that she has not dishonoured,
nor contemned it; that she has not coined money:
but only authorized others to coin money.
Nay—what is this, but coining money?---Stepping,
at once, into the throne of sovereignty; usurping, by
proxy, the two of its chief attributes; the right of coining
money, and that of raising a revenue? Yet, more---the
evil is greater than that of coining money; for, in the latter
case, the usurpation would be but of an unprofitable
attribute. There is little or no profit, in coinng money.
The general government, therefore, would lose much
less by it....and the people, as there must be some intrinsick
value in the coin, could not be utterly abused;
or to such an extent, with money coined, by an
incorporation; as by bills emitted. The former would
always be worth something, for old metal.
Thus far, have I argued closely, from the acknowledged
principles of the constitution. It abounds with
analogy. To that, I refer, without taking up the time
of the court. A few words more, and I have done.
It has been asked, why the states have been permitted,
so long, to enjoy this power, unquestioned, if it be
not a rightful one?—I have been thought rash and presumptuous,
for daring to lift up my voice against such
I am presumptuous.—I have lived long enough, not to be
afraid to speak the truth, any where; or, before any face;
and long enough, to give me confidence, when I came
here, in defiance of long usage; prescription; and consecrated
abuse. I care nothing, for either. I know
the duty of this court; and, I call upon them, to pronounce
a judgment, according to their oaths and allegiance.
I was about to leave the matter here—but, I see, on
glancing at my notes, one or two objections, to which
some answer, and mine shall be a very brief one—
ought to be given.
It is said, that any one man may, under our constitution,
issue his note of hand; and then, it is asked, if one
man may, why may not fifty; or one hundred; or a thousand?
It is said, too, that he may issue that note, in
just such shape, as he pleases; pictured and engraved,
if he will, like bank paper; merely printed like a check;
or written only, like a common promissory note—and
that it is the folly of the publick, if they receive it as
any thing more.
To which I reply, first---It is the duty of all governments
to protect the people from manifest injury,
not only where they cannot, but where they will not
protect themselves. In the next place, one man, or a
dozen, or twenty, or a thousand, may sign a note of hand;
I admit that; and put it abroad—but mark the consequence.
He and they must all be liable, in person and
property, for the redemption and payment of the note.
There lies the secret. The legislature shall not interfere,
and trample all the law of contract, into the dust,
to protect any of them;—and so long as they are not
protected, their issue is constitutional, because it is nothing
more than a partnership note. But is that like
Bank paper, issued under state authority? No—The
legislature does interfere there; and grant to one party,
protection and indemnity, against all law; and against all
the principles of law; protecting the debtor, in person and
property; nay, even in reputation: for it is no longer
disgraceful to have been one of a swindling banking
folly.
In the next place, I maintain that the United States,
alone, have the right of issuing paper money: that even
congress cannot give that power to any individual state,
any more than it can, the right of coining money. The
prohibition is peremptory. There is no chance of escape.
It is not even left, as some things are, to possibility;
or, as in the case of keeping ships of war, to
the consent of congress.
I go one step further. I say now, that, if the United
States have any paper currency abroad; not an individual
has a right to print or engrave his own simple
note of hand, so as to resemble that currency. He
has no right to coin money, so as to resemble the money
of the state. But, he has still the right to coin money;
and stamp it; and issue notes of hand, in any form
he pleases, provided that, the unwary shall know, at
a glance, that it is not the coinage, or issue of the state
sovereignty. It is not enough that a minute inspection
would discover the difference—the difference
must be broad, and sufficiently striking, to put a man
of common understanding upon inquiry.
Thus—if a man should issue square pieces of gold
coin, with his name upon them; or his own notes of hand,
in the common fashion of such things, there would be
no danger to the publick; for no man would take either,
without proper inquiry and examination; and then, he
would take it, not on the faith of the country, but on
the faith of intrinsick value, or individual credit;—and
he who coined the one, or issued the other, would not,
thereby, have subjected himself to the penalty, for
coining money.
As for the method of bringing the question before the
court—a quo warranto—is it necessary to trouble the
court with the learning upon that point?
The court consulted together, for a moment; and then
told him to proceed. They were satisfied for the present,
about the nature and mode of applying the remedy.
(Hammond smiled, as if he wondered a little,
not only at their ready acquiescence; but, at their permitting
the way that it had—before they had fully settled the
question about that)—“I have now done,” said he.
---“I have now done. I have shown, I hope, all that I
set out to show—that this bank note, which I now
hold in my hand, has been issued under a void authority;
that it has been done too, against the whole spirit
and analogy of our constitution; in defiance of all the
penalties attached to an infringement of sovereignty,
here; and that it is, in reality, coining money, in the
worst possible way; levying a tribute, in that way of
all others, most emphatically denounced by the constitution;
that it is, in short, a matter, upon which grave
men, the appointed judges of the land, whatever may
be their opinion of him, who has arisen to pluck down
the temple upon his head—if his reasoning be sound,
must unite with him to bring it down, though all of us
are stunned and blinded, with the thunder and dust of
its fall; or buried for ever in the ruins!”
Here ended his speech; and the judges upon the
bench; venerable and sedate men, with countenances
full of awful wisdom and deep thought, remained, for
some minutes, in a profound silence; during which, Hammond
passed out of court, like one assured and confident
of the result; and triumphing in his heart, that he had
turned the scorner to seriousness; and them that had
smiled upon him, in compassion, when he began, to a
tremendous repose—a repose like that which settles
and weighs upon the spirit, when it looks upon the
great ocean, at midnight—silent and breathless in awe;
awaiting every wrathful movement; and like that,
with which great men look upon revolutions; or the
mustering of armies; or the preparation for political
earthquake and hurricane.
| CHAPTER XIII. Errata, or, The works of Will. Adams | |