ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

BOOK 1.

ment in this respect.

One of the principal things that ought to employ the atCHAP. IX. tention of the government with respect to the welfare of the 101. Duty public in general, and of trade in particular, must then relate of govern- to the highways, canals, &c., in which nothing ought to be neglected to render them safe and commodious. France is one of those states where this duty to the public is discharged with the greatest attention and magnificence. Numerous [44] patroles everywhere watch over the safety of travellers: magnificent roads, bridges, and canals, facilitate the communication between one province and another:-Lewis XIV. joined the two seas by a work worthy of the Romans.

2 102. Its

respect.

The whole nation ought, doubtless, to contribute to such rights in this useful undertakings. When therefore the laying out and repairing of highways, bridges, and canals, would be too great a burden on the ordinary revenues of the state, the government may oblige the people to labour at them, or to contribute to the expense. (45) The peasants, in some of the 'provinces of France, have been heard to murmur at the labours imposed upon them for the construction of roads: but experience had no sooner made them sensible of their true interest, than they blessed the authors of the undertaking.

2103. Foundation of

the right of toll. (46)

The construction and preservation of all these works being attended with great expense, the nation may very justly oblige all those to contribute to them, who receive advantage from their use this is the legitimate origin of the right of toll. It is just that a traveller, and especially a merchant, who receives advantage from a bridge, a canal, or a road, in his own passage, and in the more commodious conveyance of

wrote, France greatly advanced in the
improvement of her roads, yet England
has surpassed all other nations in the
facilities of internal intercourse by new
canals, railways, and other improve-
ments sanctioned by the legislature.
With respect to which, see the enact-
ments and decisions, 2 Chitty's Commer-
cial Law, 127 to 141.-C.

(45) This position of a government's
right to oblige the people to labour on
the roads as thus stated, would startle
an Englishman. In England there is
no such direct power. The 34 Geo. 3,
c. 74, s. 4, it is true, requires each oc-
cupier to send his carts and horses, and
labourers, to work on the roads; but
then, if he neglect to do so, he is sub-
ject only to a moderate penalty, just
sufficient to enable the surveyor to hire
the like assistance elsewhere: and as
to men, even a pauper is subject to no
penalty for refusing to work, excepting
that, if he do so, he will not then be
entitled to parochial relief. If he work,
he is entitled to pay in money, or sup-

ply of proper food in return for his labour.-C.

(46) As to the right to toll, &c., see Grotius, b. ii. chap. 2, 14, p. 154; Puffendorff, book iii. chap. 3, 6, p. 29, 30; 1 Bla. Com. 287; 1 Chitty's Commercial Law, 103 to 106; 2 Id. 139, 140. It has been observed, that of all the taxes with which the inhabitants of this country are burdened, there is perhaps none so odious as the turnpike duty. On the continent no such interruption in travelling is experienced, and tolls have been abolished on the northern side of the metropolis, London. Lord Byron, in his eulogy upon English roads, humorously ob

[blocks in formation]

BOOK I.

his merchandise, should help to defray the expense of these useful establishments, by a moderate contribution: and if the _CHAP. IX. state thinks proper to exempt the citizens from paying it, she

is under no obligation to gratify strangers in this particular.

But a law so just in its origin frequently degenerates into 3104. Abuse great abuses. There are countries where no care is taken of this right. of the highways, and where nevertheless considerable tolls (47) are exacted. A lord of a manor, who happens to possess a stripe of land terminating on a river, there establishes a toll, though he is not at a farthing's expense in keeping up the navigation of the river, and rendering it convenient. This is a manifest extortion, and an infringement of the natural rights of mankind. For the division of lands, and their becoming private property, could never deprive any man of the right of passage, when not the least injury is done to the person through whose territory he passes. Every man inherits this right from nature, and cannot justly be forced to purchase it. (47)

But the arbitrary or customary law of nations at present tolerates this abuse, while it is not carried to such an excess as to destroy commerce. People do not, however, submit without difficulty, except in the case of those tolls which are established by ancient usage: and the imposition of new ones is often a source of disputes. The Swiss formerly made war on the Dukes of Milan, on account of some oppressions of this nature. This right of tolls is also further abused, when the passenger is obliged to contribute too much, and what bears no proportion to the expense of preserving these public passages. (48)

At present, to avoid all difficulty and oppression, nations settle these points by treaties.

(47) This position requires explanation and qualification. As respects a public navigable river, every part of the navigable stream must ever remain free and open from its communication with the sea to its extreme navigable point; but the absolute right to approach it on each side, can only be by public and general ways. Consequently, if an individual have land adjoining a river, he may reasonably refuse permission to any person to go over it to approach the river, and demand any sum he thinks fit for the permission, unless there be a public way over it. Nor have the public any right at common law to tow on the banks of an ancient navigable river; Ball v. Herbert, 3 Term Rep. 253; though it may exist by custom or prescription. Pierce v. Fauconberge,

1 Burr. 292. In the absence of such
custom or prescription, no right to ap-
proach a river over private grounds
exists. Parthericke v. Mason, 2 Chitty's
Rep. 658; Wyatt v. Thompson, 1 Esp.
Rep. 252. {Chess v. Manown, 3 Watts,
Rep. 219; Cooper v. Smith, 9 Serg. &
Rawle, 26.} So, if a private individual
make and repair a bridge over a river,
he may insist upon any person using
it paying him a toll, as in the instance
of Putney and Fulham bridge. In
these cases the demand of an exorbi-
tant toll may be illiberal, but is no
more illegal than a nation's refusing
to sell its superfluous produce, or to
admit free passage through its country.
The right to pass at a moderate toll
is a moral but imperfect right, ante,
91.-C.

(48) See n. 47, ante.

BOOK I. CHAP. X.

CHAP. X.

OF MONEY AND EXCHANGE. (49)

? 105. Es- IN the first ages, after the introduction of private property, tablishment people exchanged their superfluous commodities and effects of money. for those they wanted. Afterwards gold and silver became the common standard of the value of all things: and to prevent the people from being cheated, the mode was introduced of stamping pieces of gold and silver in the name of the state, with the figure of the prince, or some other impression, as the seal and pledge of their value. This institution is of great use and infinite convenience: it is easy to see how much it facilitates commerce.-Nations or sovereigns cannot therefore bestow too much attention on an affair of such importance.

? 106. Duty The impression on the coin becoming the seal of its standof the nation ard and weight, a moment's reflection will convince us that with respect the coinage of money ought not to be left indiscriminately to the coin. free to every individual; for, by that means, frauds would

or prince

become too common-the coin would soon lose the public confidence; and this would destroy a most useful institution. Hence money is coined by the authority and in the name of the state or prince, who are its surety; they ought, therefore, to have a quantity of it coined sufficient to answer the necessities of the country, and to take care that it be good, that is to say, that its intrinsic value bear a just proportion to its extrinsic or numerary value.

It is true, that, in a pressing necessity, the state would have a right to order the citizens to receive the coin at a price superior to its real value: but as foreigners will not receive it at that price, the nation gains nothing by this proceeding; it is only a temporary palliative for the evil, without effecting a radical cure. This excess of value, added in an arbitrary manner to the coin, is a real debt which the sovereign contracts with individuals: and, in strict justice, this crisis of affairs being over, that money ought to be called in at the expense of the state, and paid for in other specie, according to the natural standard: otherwise, this kind of burden, laid on in the hour of necessity, would fall solely on those who received this arbitrary money in payment, which would be unjust. Besides, experience has shown that such a resource is destructive to trade, by destroying the confidence both of foreigners and citizens-raising in proportion the price of every thing

(49) The modern law of nations, and the municipal law of England, as to coin, bullion, and money, will be found collected in 1 Bla. Com. 276 to 280; 4

Id. 84 to 120; 1 Chitty's Commercial Law, 583; 2 Id. 179 to 187, and statutes and decisions there colleeted.-C.

[ocr errors]

CHAP. X.

and inducing every one to lock up or send abroad the good old specie; whereby a temporary stop is put to the circulation of money. So that it is the duty of every nation and of every sovereign to abstain, as much as possible, from so dangerous an experiment, and rather to have recourse to extraordinary [ 46 ] taxes and contributions to support the pressing exigencies of the state.*

Since the state is surety for the goodness of the money 107. Their and its currency, the public authority alone has the right of rights in this coining it. Those who counterfeit it, violate the rights of respect. the sovereign, whether they make it of the same standard and value or not. These are called false-coiners, and their crime is justly considered as one of the most heinous nature. For if they coin base money, they rob both the public and the prince; and if they coin good, they usurp the prerogative of the sovereign. They will never be inclined to coin good money unless there be a profit on the coinage and in this case they rob the state of a profit which exclusively be

* In Boizard's Treatise on Coin, we find the following observations: "It is worthy of remark, that, when our kings debased the coin, they kept the circumstance a secret from the people :-witness the ordinance of Philip de Valois in 1350, by which he ordered Tournois Doubles to be coined 2d. 5gr. fine, which was, in fact, a debasement of the coin. In that ordinance, addressing the officers of the mint, he says Upon the oath by which you are bound to the king, keep this affair as secret as you possibly can, that neither the bankers nor others may, by your means, acquire any knowledge of it; for if, through you, it comes to be known, you shall be punished for the offence in such manner as shall serve as an example to others."-The same author quotes other similar ordinances of the same king, and one issued by the Dauphin, who governed the kingdom as regent during the captivity of King John, dated June 27, 1360, by virtue of which the mint-masters, directing the officers engaged in the coinage to coin white Deniera 1d. 12gr. fine, at the same time expressly command them to keep this order secret, and, "if any persons should make inquiry respecting their standard, to maintain that they were 2d. fine." Chap. xxix.

The kings [of France] had recourse to this strange expedient in cases of urgent necessity; but they saw its injustice. The same author, speaking of the debasement of coin, or the va

rious modes of reducing its intrinsic
value, says "These expedients are
but rarely resorted to, because they give
occasion to the exportation or melting
down of the good specie, and to the in-
troduction and circulation of foreign
coin-raise the price of every thing-
impoverish individuals-diminish the
revenue, which is paid in specie of in-
ferior value-and sometimes put a total
stop to commerce. This truth has been
so well understood in all ages, that
those princes who had recourse to one
or other of these modes of debasing the
coin in difficult times, ceased to prac-
tise it the moment the necessity ceased
to exist." We have, on this subject, an
ordinance of Philip the Fair, issued in
May, 1295, which announces, that,
"The king having reduced the coin
both in fineness and weight, and ex-
pecting to be obliged to make a further
reduction in order to retrieve his affairs,

but knowing himself to be, in conscience, responsible for the injury caused to the state by such reduction, pledges himself to the people of his kingdom, by solemn charter, that, as soon as his affairs are retrieved, he will restore the coin to its proper standard and value, at his own private cost and expense, and will himself bear all the loss and waste. And, in addition to this engagement, Dame Joan, Queen of France and Navarre, pledges her revenues and dower for the same purpose." Note. edit. A. D. 1797.

CHAP. X.

BOOK I. longs to it. In both cases they do an injury to the sovereign; for the public faith being surety for the money, the sovereign alone has a right to have it coined. For this reason the right of coining is placed among the prerogatives of majesty, and Bodinus relates,* that Sigismund Augustus, king of Poland, having granted this privilege to the duke of Prussia, in the year 1543, the states of the country passed a decree in which it was asserted that the king could not grant that privilege, it being inseparable from the crown. [ 47 ] The same author observes, that, although many lords and bishops of France had formerly the privilege of coining money, it was still considered as coined by the king's authority: and the kings of France at last withdrew all those privileges, on account of their being often abused.

2 108. How one nation may injure the article

another in

of coin.

2109. Of exchange,

and the laws

of com

merce.

From the principles just laid down, it is easy to conclude, that if one nation counterfeits the money of another, or if she allows and protects false-coiners who presume to do it, she does that nation an injury. But commonly criminals of this class find no protection anywhere-all princes being equally interested in exterminating them. (50)

There is another custom more modern, and of no less use to commerce than the establishment of coin, namely exchange, or the traffic of bankers, by means of which a merchant remits immense sums from one end of the world to the other, at a very trifling expense, and, if he pleases, without risk. For the same reason that sovereigns are obliged to protect commerce, they are obliged to support this custom, by good laws, in which every merchant, whether citizen or foreigner, may find security. In general, it is equally the interest and the duty of every nation to have wise and equitable commercial laws established in the country.

In his Republic, book i. chap. x.
(50) This is a sound principle, which
ought to be extended so as to deny ef
fect to any fraud upon a foreign nation
or its subjects. But in England a nar-
row and immoral policy prevails of not
noticing frauds upon the revenue of a
foreign state. Roach v. Edie, 6 Term
Rep. 425; Boucher v. Lawrence, R. T.
Hardw. 198; Holman v. Johnson, Cowp.
343; James v. Catherwood, 3 Dowl. &
Ryl. 190. Cambioso's Ex. v. Maffet's
Assignees, 2 Wash. C. C. Rep. 99.} And
so far has this narrow doctrine been
carried, in disgrace of this country, that,
in Smith v. Marconnay, 2 Peake's Rep.

81, it was held, that the maker of paper in England, knowingly made by him for the purpose of forging assignats upon the same, to be exported to France in order to commit frauds there on other persons, might recover damages for not accepting such paper pursuant to contract. So a master of an English ship was even allowed to recover salvage for bringing home his captured vessel, by deceptively inducing the enemy to release the vessel on his giving a ransom bill, payment of which he took care to countermand in London. 2 Dodson's R. 74.

118

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »