Now, I do not intend at this time to enter into a discussion of States' rights; but I will say, and all must agree, that there are such things as rights of the States; and if the people of the State of New York had a right to create the Constitution of 1846, they had the same right to insert the provisions just quoted therein, Wherefore, having those rights, there is no power under heaven that can take it from them, or enforce any conflicting law which shall effectually and practically overthrow the purpose for which these provisions were inserted in the fundamental law of this great State.

There were causes why the Convention of 1846 threw around the people the protecting fold of Constitutional Law upon the subject of banking. Every member of this Court is conversant with those reasons. The history of banking within this State, from the time of the creation of the first bank within its borders down to the present time, presents a continual controversy between the banks on one side and the People on the other, attempting to shield themselves, through the Legislature and the Courts, from their aggressions, but mostly in vain.

The acts of the Legislature and the decisions of the Courts were alike ineffectual in accomplishing the desired end, until at last it was supposed that the Constitution had fixed forever the rights of both; but we are here to-day attempting, through the Courts, to compel these monied corporations to fulfil their obligations.

In an act passed by our Legislature, I believe, in 1851, pursuant to the requirement of the Constitution, the words "lawful money of the United States" were most unfortunately used; and here is the hope of the banks centered in this controversy.

Notwithstanding the words of the Constitution-notwithstanding the fact, that at the time the words "lawful money of the United States" were used in the statute, such money, of necessity, must have meant specie, and when the only "lawful money of the United States" was specie-still, these banks now insist that they have a right to redeem their bills in paper money not of more than half the value of specie in the money market.

It must be admitted that at the time the words "lawful money of the United States" were used, as before stated, specie

was the only lawful money of the land, and that at that time it could not have been supposed that legal tender notes would ever have an existence. The Legislature must have used the words to represent specie alone; such being the intention, the Court is bound thus to hold in order to give effect to the statute.

The Legislature, according to the provisions of the Constitution, had no right to pass a law giving the banks the right to redeem their bills in paper money, nor in any money other than specie; and having used the words "lawful money of the United States" at the time, and in the manner it did, the Court will (according to the most familiar and long-established rules of construction of statutes) hold that the words mean specie.

Besides, the same kind of money that was regarded as the "lawful money of the United States" in 1846 and 1851 is still the only standard currency known to the law and to the Federal Constitution.

As I said in the beginning, I do not undertake to maintain that legal tender notes are absolutely void. I do not consider such a conclusion necessary for the purposes of this action. I have attempted to show to this Court, by the points I have made in my brief, and I now shall attempt to show that these notes are not specie, nor equal to it, and that the banks of this State have no right to redeem their bills in anything but specie, or at least not in that which is of less value.

Legal tender notes (even admitting their constitutionality,) are not regarded by the Government, and in fact are not, equivalent to specie. Gold and silver have a value, and are available throughout the world as bullion, and the additional value given to it by assaying and coining is to equalize its purity, and fix the size and weight of the coin, and equalize their value. The power to do this is expressly given to Congress under the the provision of the Constitution, "to coin money, &c." Not so with legal tender notes; the value of these consists--not in the material either as to size or quality-but in the ability and willingness of the Government to redeem the same at some future time.

We know that the only real value that these legal tender notes have, is given to them by Congress. We likewise know

that it is different with gold and silver: yet I will not stop to argue this point-(although one of the Judges of the Seventh District has done so,) as to the relative value of gold and silver

-as compared with the paper out of which legal tender notes are stamped-for they are not coined. At the present time, those in New York who have over forty ounces of silver, are certainly made acquainted with the fact that it has an intrinsic value, although not coined into money.

Again :-These notes were made payable at the Treasury of the United States. Payable in what? I ask. In what did Congress intend they should be paid? Those who made the law under and by virtue of which legal tender notes were created, must have considered that there was something in existence with which to pay these notes: and what was it—if not the gold and silver which was still looked upon as the lawful money of the United States? I have faith enough in this Government to believe that every Treasury note issued by it will at some time be redeemed, and if redeemed, it must be in gold and silver coin. These notes are also made exchangeable for United States six per cent. twenty years bonds, redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after five years. I askcould the Government at the end of five years redeem these bonds with legal tender notes, or does it thus intend to redeem them?

Suppose you take these legal tender notes and convert them. into bonds: keep the bonds until the end of five years; it then becomes the pleasure of the Government to redeem their bonds: could the redemption be made in legal tender notes? Did they who framed the law intend that this should be its practical operation? and if not (as must be apparent) why are the Courts asked to give these legal tender notes a value beyond that which Congress intended they should have? Neither the interest on the public debt nor duties on imports can be paid with legal tender notes-why is this, if they are equal to specie in the eye of the law by which they are created?

The Court must see, I think, that these notes are not equivalent to specie, and that Congress never intended they should be. Suppose that the Legislature of this State, at its last session, had passed an act giving the banks a right to redeem their bills

in legal tender notes, would not such an act have been void? Or, suppose that it had passed an act granting banking privileges without first requiring security to redeem their bills in specie, and allowing them to redeem their bills in legal tender notes-would not such an act have been in violation of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution? And if the Legislature of this State could not constitutionally have granted such privileges to banking institutions in this State, how can Congress or the Courts do so?

I suppose that an individual or association must now comply with all the requirements of the laws and Constitution of this State, before banking privileges can be bestowed upon them. Can this Court say otherwise? Has it such power? And if so, by what authority? Admitting that such preliminary steps must be taken, how inconsistent to say that after all this care to protect the People, the banks may disregard their obligations with impunity.

But time will not permit me to dwell here: I must pass to another proposition. By the act creating them, these notes are made legal tender for the payment of all debts public and private is the redemption of their bills by a bank the payment of a debt within the literal meaning of the term? I have shown that a bank can only become such by complying with the Constitution and the law. They are allowed to circulate notes as money, upon condition that they will redeem the same upon demand in specie. The relation of debtor and creditor does not exist between the bill holders and the banks issuing the bills: a bill-holder gives no credit to the bank in receiving its bills, but relies, and has a legal right to rely upon the securities pledged for their redemption against loss with the superintendent.

The bill holder has the constitutional right to demand of the bank its redemption in specie: upon this condition alone was the bank allowed to issue the bill, and upon this guaranty the holder received it: certainly, it will not be said that`a legaltender note is an equivalent to specie.

As I understand, you may not have an action against a bank for the amount of its bills upon a refusal by it to redeem the same, but must apply to the superintendent for the sale of

the securities pledged for the redemption of its bills with him. The bills issued by a bank are certainly not a debt, such as one contracted for the rent of a banking house, the payments of its clerks, &c. For a debt of this kind you might have an action, but could not require the sale of its securities as upon the refusal to redeem its bills in specie.

The Court is undoubtedly aware that for the last two years or or more, throughout the country, (but more particularly in the city of New York)-there has been a most unprecedented demand for the precious metals. Wall street has been crowded with those seeking to speculate in them; and also by those whose necessities demanded their use. Notwithstanding the abundance of legal-tender notes, the great money market of these States has only looked upon gold and silver as the standard currency of the land.

The Superintendent of the Banking Department of this State in his report for 1863, says:

"The most important event in the financial history of the last fiscal year has been, the suspension of specie payments by the banks of this and other States: this occurrence dates from December 28th, 1861, at which time the annual report from this department had already passed through the press, thus precluding allusion to the subject. To whatever causes such suspension may be attributable, the event is one of serious amount to the whole community conversion of a paper currency into gold and silver, at the will of the holder, is the elementary attribute through which alone its existence can be tolerated. The evils resulting from an irredeemable paper currency are so generally understood and conceded, as to need no special elucidation. The laws of this State bearing upon the subject are of such unmitigated severity, that where the demand for payment in coin is persistently enforced, the banks have no alternative but compliance, or the relinquishment of banking privileges. In view of the immunity granted to the banks by the legislature, after the suspension of specie payments in 1837, the framers of the present Constitution embodied therein the following clause: The Legislature shall have no power to pass any law sanctioning in any manner, directly or indirectly, the suspension of specie payments by any person, association or corporation issuing bank notes of any description.' It is obvious therefore, that under the unrestricted operations of the laws of this State, an irredeemable paper currency cannot be maintained. It is true, the community might waive for a short period the payment