judicial decisions.1 As this doctrine seems now to have obtained a general acquiescence, it does not seem necessary to review the reasoning on which the different opinions are founded; although, as a new question, it is probably as much open to controversy as any one which has ever given rise to judicial argumentation. But upon all such subjects it seems desirable to adopt the sound practical maxim, Interest reipublicæ, ut finis sit litium.

§ 1115. It is, however, to be understood, that although the States still retain the power to pass insolvent and bankrupt laws, that power is not unlimited, as it was before the Constitution. It does not, as will be presently seen, extend to the passing of insolvent or bankrupt acts which shall discharge the obligation of antecedent contracts. It can discharge such contracts only as are made subsequently to the passing of such acts, and such as are made within the State between citizens of the same State. It does not extend to contracts made with a citizen of another State within the State, nor to any contracts made in other States.2

1 Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. R. 122, 191 to 196; Id. 198 to 202; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. R. 273, 275, 280, 306, 310, 314, 335, 369.

2 Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. R. 122, 369; Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Peters, R. 348; 2 Kent, Comm. Lect. 37, p. 323, 324; Sergeant on Const. Law, ch. 28, p. 309 [ch. 30, p. 322]; Rawle on the Constitution, ch. 9, p. 101, 102. [The following is a summary of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States as to the power of the States over the subject of bankruptcy and insolvency:

1. The several States have power to legislate on the subject of bankrupt and insolvent laws, subject, however, to the authority conferred upon Congress by the Constitution to adopt a uniform system of bankruptcy, which authority, when exercised, is paramount, and State enactments in conflict with those of Congress upon the subject must give way. Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122; Farmers and Mechanics' Bank v. Smith, 6 Wheat. 131; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213; Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 229.

2. Such State laws, however, discharging the person or the property of the debtor, and thereby terminating the legal obligation of the debts, cannot constitutionally be made to apply to contracts entered into before they were passed, but they may be made applicable to such future contracts as can be considered as having been made in reference to them. Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213.

3. Contracts made within a State where an insolvent law exists, between citizens of that State, are to be considered as made in reference to the law, and are subject to its provisions. But the law cannot apply to a contract made in one State between a citizen thereof, and a citizen of another State. (Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213; Springer v. Foster, 2 Story, 387; Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 348; Woodhull v. Wagner, Baldw. 300; Suydam v. Broadnax, 14 Pet. 75; Cook v. Moffat, 5 How. 310; Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 231); nor to contracts not made within the State, even though between citizens of the same State (M'Millan v. M'Neill, 4 Wheat. 209.) And where the contract is made between a citizen of one State and a citizen of another, the

circumstance that the contract is made payable in the State where the insolvent law exists will not render such contract subject to be discharged under the law. Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223; Baldwin v. Bank of Newbury, Id. 234; Gilman v. Lockwood, 4 Wall. 409.

If, however, the creditor makes himself a party to proceedings under the insolvent law, he will be bound thereby like any other party to judicial proceedings, and is not to be heard afterwards to object that his debt was excluded by the Constitution from being affected by the law. Clay v. Smith, 3 Pet. 411; Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223; Gilman v. Lockwood, 4 Wall. 409.]

CHAPTER XVII.

POWER TO COIN MONEY AND FIX THE STANDARD OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

§ 1116. THE next power of Congress is "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures." 1

§ 1117. Under the confederation, the continental congress had delegated to them "the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the States," and "fixing the standard of weights and measures throughout the United States." It is observable that, under the confederation, there was no power given to regulate the value of foreign coin, an omission which, in a great measure, would destroy any uniformity in the value of the current coin, since the respective States might, by different regulations, create a different value in each.2 The Constitution has, with great propriety, cured this defect; and, indeed, the whole clause, as it now stands, does not seem to have attracted any discussion

1 [After the breaking out of the great civil war in 1861, it was deemed necessary by Congress, in order to supply the means of carrying on the war, to issue a large amount of treasury notes, and to make them a legal tender in payment of private debts, and also of all public dues except duties on imports and interest on the public debt. These notes thereupon, to a large extent, became the circulating medium of the country, and gold and silver ceased to be used in ordinary traffic, except on the, Pacific slope. The constitutional validity of the Legal Tender Acts of Congress was strongly contested, especially in their application to pre-existing debts, but it was generally sustained by the State courts. The question did not come before the Supreme Court of the United States for decision until the case of Hepburn v. Griswold, decided in December, 1869, and reported in 8 Wallace, 603. In that case a majority of the court (Chase, C. J., Nelson, Clifford, and Field, JJ.) held that the acts were valid so far as they applied to debts contracted subsequently to their passage, but that they were, as to debts contracted before their passage, unwarranted by the Constitution. Justices Miller, Swayne, and Davis dissented. A year later, however, this decision was overruled, and the acts sustained, as well in their application to pre-existing debts as to those subsequently contracted. This result was .concurred in by Justices Strong and Bradley (appointed since the former decision), Miller, Davis, and Swayne, and dissented from by the Chief Justice and Justices Nelson, Clifford, and Field. See Knox v. Lee, 12 Wall. 457.]

2 The Federalist, No. 42.

1

in the convention. It has been justly remarked, that the power "to coin money" would, doubtless, include that of regulating its value, had the latter power not been expressly inserted. But the Constitution abounds with pleonasms and repetitions of this nature.2

3

§ 1118. The grounds upon which the general power to coin money and regulate the value of foreign and domestic coin is granted to the national government cannot require much illustration in order to vindicate it. The object of the power is to produce uniformity of value throughout the Union, and thus to preclude us from the embarrassments of a perpetually fluctuating and variable currency. Money is the universal medium or common standard, by a comparison with which the value of all merchandise may be ascertained, or, it is a sign which represents the respective values of all commodities. It is, therefore, indispensable for the wants and conveniences of commerce, domestic as well as foreign. The power to coin money is one of the ordinary prerogatives of sovereignty, and is almost universally exercised, in order to preserve a proper circulation of good coin of a known value in the home market. In order to secure it from debasement, it is necessary that it should be exclusively under the control and regulation of the government; for if every individual were permitted to make and circulate what coin he should please, there would be an opening to the grossest frauds and impositions upon the public, by the use of base and false coin. And the same remark applies, with equal force, to foreign coin, if allowed to circulate freely in a country without any control by the government. Every civilized government, therefore, with a view to prevent such abuses, to facilitate exchanges, and thereby to encourage all sorts of industry and commerce, as well as to guard itself against the embarrassments of an undue scarcity of currency, injurious to its own interests and credits, has found it necessary to coin money, and affix to it a public stamp and value, and to regulate the introduction and use of foreign coins. In England, this prerogative belongs to the crown, and, in former ages, it was greatly abused; for base coin was often coined and circulated by its authority, at a value far above its intrinsic worth, and thus taxes of a burdensome nature

1 Journ. of Convention, p. 220, 257, 357.

2 Mr. Madison's Letter to Mr. Cabell, 18th Sept. 1828. 31 Black, Comm. 276.

4 Smith's Wealth of Nations, B. 1, ch. 4.

1

were laid indirectly upon the people. There is great propriety, therefore, in confiding it to the legislature, not only as the more immediate representatives of the public interests, but as the more safe depositaries of the power.2

§ 1119. The only question which could properly arise under our political institutions is, whether it should be confided to the national or to the State government. It is manifest that the former could alone give it complete effect, and secure a wholesome and uniform currency throughout the Union. The varying standards and regulations of the different States would introduce infinite embarrassments and vexations in the course of trade, and often subject the innocent to the grossest frauds. The evils of this nature were so extensively felt, that the power was unhesitatingly confided, by the articles of confederation, exclusively to the general government, notwithstanding the extraordinary jealousy which pervades every clause of that instrument. But the concurrent power thereby reserved to the States (as well as the want of a power to regulate the value of foreign coin) was, under that feeble pageant of sovereignty, soon found to destroy the whole importance of the grant. The floods of depreciated paper-money, with which most of the States of the Union during the last war, as well as the revolutionary war with England, were inundated, to the dismay of the traveller and the ruin of commerce, afford a lively proof of the mischiefs of a currency exclusively under the control of the States.4

§ 1120. It will be hereafter seen that this is an exclusive power in Congress, the States being expressly prohibited from coining money. And it has been said by an eminent statesman,5 that it is difficult to maintain, on the face of the Constitution itself and

1 1 Black. Comm. 278; Christian's note, 21; Davies's Rep. 48; 1 Hale's Pl. Cr. 192 to 196.

2 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 261.

3 Art. 9.

4 During the late war with Great Britain (1812 to 1814), in consequence of the banks of the Middle, and Southern, and Western States having suspended specie payments for their bank-notes, they depreciated as low as twenty-five per cent discount from their nominal value. The duties on imports were, however, paid and received in the local currency; and the consequence was, that goods imported at Baltimore paid twenty per cent less duty than the same goods paid when imported into Boston. This was a plain practical violation of the provision of the Constitution, that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform.

5 Mr. Webster's Speech on the Bank of the United States, 25th and 28th of May, 1832.