CONGRESS, U. S. 



325 



to do. "Why is this? What is the object in- 

 tended to be effected by making these notes 

 thus a tender iu payment of private debts? I 

 have before me a letter addressed by the Sec- 

 retary of the Treasury, Mr. Chase, to a Rep- 

 resentative in the other House, and which 

 was used in that body, from which I wish to 

 read for the purpose of seeing what is the ob- 

 ject to be effected, and why it is to be effected. 

 Speaking of these notes, he says : 



The making them a legal tender, however, might 

 still be avoided, if the wuUngneM manifested by the 

 people generally, by railroad companies, and by many 

 of the banking institutions, to receive and pay them as 

 money in all transactions were absolutely or practical- 

 ly universal ; but, unfortunately, there are some persons 

 and some institutions which refuse to receive and pay 

 them, and whose action tends not merely to the un- 

 necessary depreciation of these notes, but to establish 

 discrimination in business against those who, in this 

 matter, give their cordial support to the Government, 

 and in favor of those who do not make such discrimi- 

 nation. This, if possible, should be prevented, and a 

 provision making notes a legal tender, in a great 

 measure at least, prevents it, by putting all citizens in 

 this respect on the same level, both of rights and 

 duties. 



" There is the statement. This feature of 

 the bill is ingrafted o it for the purpose of 

 making the thing precisely equal, and operating 

 alike on all citizens of the community. Now, 

 what does the word 'tender' mean? I do 

 not speak of it as an adjective ; I speak of it as 

 a noun, a substantive. It means an attempt 

 at payment, an offer of payment of a debt due. 

 It applies to nothing else. Here comes a dis- 

 tinction which, it seems to me, has hardly been 

 looked at, in the importance in which I view 

 it, in all the discussions in the House of Rep- 

 resentatives. Who, under this bill, is compel- 

 led to take this paper called money ? Nobody 

 but those who have debts due them. Nobody 

 is compelled to take it for his property. 

 Tender cannot be made to a man to obtain his 

 horse from him. He has a horse to sell, he 

 has flour to sell, merchandise to sell, work to 

 perform, labor to do ; you cannot make a tender 

 to a man for any of these things. In all the 

 great general affairs of. life, this provision, 

 made, as it is said, to make men equal, can 

 never have any application to them. It applies 

 to nobody except some man who has been so 

 unfortunate as to incur the public displeasure 

 because he has saved a little money from his 

 industry, and has it in the form of a debt due 

 him. It is none but such an unfortunate man 

 that can be reached by this provision, and that 

 is called making things equal ! I do not know 

 what opinions other men may have about 

 equality. I have heard that equality was 

 equity. If they are convertible terms, I say 

 that is not equality nor equity either. The 

 number of people who owe debts in every com- 

 munity is very much larger than those who 

 have debts due to them. To all those people 

 you address yourself by this tender clause, say- 

 ing, ' We engage all of you who owe debts to 

 depreciate this paper as much as you can and 



get it as cheap as you can, to cheat your credi- 

 tors with.' That is enlisting a very great aid, 

 I take it, to the currency of this paper. 



"Mr. President, where is the power to do 

 this derived from ? It is said to be an inciden- 

 tal power, falling within that provision of the 

 Constitution giving Congress authority to make 

 all the laws which are necessary and proper to 

 carry into effect the granted powers. When 

 gentlemen desire to get some latitude and el- 

 bow room for action, I know that they are 

 generally exceedingly desirous to get a thing 

 into that category. If you can only get the 

 power into that incidental clause, you have 

 plenty of elasticity. It has so much India- 

 rubber substance in it that you can take just 

 as much elbow room as you want. There is, 

 therefore, in those who desire to magnify their 

 office and their power, a very strong inclination 

 to resort to this clause. 



" It is said to be incidental to a great variety 

 of powers. It is said that Congress has power 

 to raise and support armies, ergo the incidental 

 power to raise money in this form or any other 

 form for the purpose of supporting armies! 

 So it is said that the Government has power 

 to pay its debts, ergo we may raise money in 

 this way! The most general packhorse for 

 this incidental power, however, has been the 

 authority given to Congress by the Constitu- 

 tion to regulate commerce, and this power is 

 said to be derived from that. I have heard 

 some considerable latitude of argument about 

 that. But, sir, what is the power of Congress 

 to regulate commerce? The Constitution says 

 that Congress may 'regulate commerce with 

 foreign nations, and among the several States, 

 and with the Indian tribes.' Here is a bill 

 authorizing the issue of Treasury notes and 

 making them a tender in payment of debts. I 

 want to know what that has to do with trade 

 between the States ? To my mind that, if it is 

 doing anything, is regulating trade between 

 me and my neighbor in the same State, not 

 regulating trade between separate States, and 

 not regulating foreign trade. It is merely 

 regulating a shaving trade between debtor and 

 creditor. The bill proposes to make these 

 notes a tender to pass as the representative of 

 value in trade between man and man. Under 

 this clause of the Constitution, it might be pro- 

 posed to adopt some measure for a commercial 

 agency or commercial functionary ; but if you 

 make paper a tender, as I have before remark- 

 ed, nobody will be bound to take it in ex- 

 change for property. Then it cannot be a 

 measure of regulating commerce. It will not 

 regulate it at all." 



Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, thus expressed 

 his views on this point: "It is not my pur- 

 pose to say anything in regard to the constitu- 

 tional question. Senators of eminent ability 

 differ upon that question : men eminent in con- 

 stitutional law, in and out of Congress, differ 

 upon that question ; and when the most emi- 

 nent constitutional lawyers of the country 



