It may seem odd to Americans approaching the twenty-first
century that in the United States Constitution, a foreign coin
is referred to as the Money-unit of our Nation, but that is
exactly what the Constitution established. The term "Dollar" is
referred to twice in the Constitution,(1) but, in 1787-1789, the
only "Dollar" in existence was the Spanish milled dollar. The
word "Dollar" is not defined in the Constitution but no
definition was necessary: Everyone familiar with economic affairs
knew that the word meant the "silver Spanish milled dollar."(2)
Beginning as early as 1704 the "piezo de ocho" or piece of
eight, as the silver Spanish milled dollar was known, became, for
all practical purposes, the money-unit of the American people.
In 1704, Queen Anne issued a proclamation binding upon the
American Colonies that declared that all foreign silver coins
were to be "regulated, according to their weight and fineness"
and compared to the standard of "the pieces of eight."(3)
Similarly in 1776, a committee of the Continental Congress
declared that the Spanish milled dollar had become by default
"the Money-Unit or common measure"(4) in use throughout the
Colonies. In 1784 Congress used the "Spanish piece of eight
reals, or, as the Americans called it, the dollar, as the unit of
currency(5)". Further, in 1785, Congress proposed the Spanish
milled dollar as "the money unit" arguing that the "Dollar . . .
has long been in general use" and "accords with the natural modes
of keeping accounts(6)" and in 1786, Congress established the
Spanish Dollar as the "money unit for computation. . . without a
negative vote(7)". Finally, after the adoption of the
Constitution, Congress in 1792, under their authority to "coin
Money", legislated that any new "Dollars" coined were to be "of
the value of a Spanish milled dollar"(8)but allowed the Spanish
milled dollar to continue to circulate and to be accepted (when
of full weight and not worn or clipped) "in the public offices"
and "proceedings in the courts" (as well as the new "Dollars")
as the "Money of Account of the United States".(9) This early use
of a foreign coin as our "Money of Account" is not the only
strange aspect--to us modern Americans--of our monetary system:
Consider the peculiar power of Congress to regulate the value of
"foreign coin"(10) or the power to punish counterfeiters of not
only United States coins but foreign coins (such as the Spanish
Piece of Eight) which were made "current" in the United States?(11)
Altogether There are six major provisions in the
Constitution (including the Bill of Rights)(12)
that deal with or
refer to money. Each of these provisions must be considered and
related to each other to thoroughly and properly understand the
Founders intentions. Such a thorough consideration is beyond the
scope of this paper however. Instead, This paper will hone in on
one narrow aspect of these monetary powers and disabilities--an
attempt to show--what the Founders meant by the power to
"regulate value" and how this power was considered inseparable
and related to the power to fix a "Standard". Furthermore, that
Congress--as a whole--understood and followed the founders
intentions concerning these powers as manifest in the debates in
congress and every coinage act up to 1857.
Both the powers to "regulate value" and fixing a "standard"
have an extensive English common-law history. As mentioned
earlier, the Spanish milled dollar had become, by Queen Anne's
Proclamation of 1704 at least, the "common measure", or standard
by which all other coins (both gold and silver) were to be
measured in the colonies. In other words samplings could be taken
of various foreign (or domestic) silver coins and assayed to
determine the fine silver content and then compared against the
amount of fine silver contained in the Standard--the Dollar.
Thus, technically speaking we were on a silver standard.(13) Gold
coins could be likewise assayed for fine gold content and then
the free market ratio between gold and silver, used to determine
its value. Any coin, whether Gold or Silver, was to compared
with the standard and valued proportionately. Blackstone, in his
Commentaries, noted that the king by proclamation could
"legitimate foreign coin", and declare "at what value it shall be
taken in payments" but that this power "ought to be by comparison
with the standard"(14) which standard was fixed by the king and was
to be of a "given weight. . . of a given fineness" which would
then be a "true standard".(15)
Thus we see that the Common law of England, as applied in the
Colonies, understood the power to "regulate value" as part and
parcel of the power to fix a "standard".(16)
At least two of the American Colonies understood this aspect
of English common law. During the period of "benign neglect" of
the Colonies by England, Both Connecticut and Massachusetts,
until prohibited by Parliament in 1707, "regulated" the value of
certain foreign coins during the late 1600's.(17)
Later, after the split with England, the Coinage policy of
the Continental Congress paralleled this traditional common-law
approach. A committee of the Continental Congress in 1776
prepared a table of values of various silver and gold coins
relative to the Spanish milled dollar which were "estimated. . .
according to the quantity of fine silver they contain[ed]" in the
case of silver coins and in the case of gold coins "the value of
fine gold they contain[ed] and the proportion. . . which fine
gold bears to that of fine silver in the marketplace".(18) In
1786, a congressional Board of treasury stated that it was the
intention of Congress to adopt as the "Money-Unit" the "common
dollars (or Spanish milled dollars)" and further determined that
any new Units or Dollars coined were to contain "three hundred
and seventy five grains and sixty four hundredths of a Grain of
fine silver" (effectively setting a standard).(19) The Board also
stated that "the difference that Custom has established between
coined gold and silver, in the United States" should be a basis
for establishing the relative value of such gold and silver
coins.
Under the newly formed Constitution of the United States,
Congress in 1792, established a mint and authorized the minting
of both silver and gold coins. The "Standard" was established by
making the "Dollar" as the "money of Account of the United
States" which all public offices and courts were bound to accept
and defining the "Dollar" as 371.25 grains of pure silver(20)
which
was the average weight then of the Spanish Piece of Eight.(21)
Gold coins in the form of "Eagles", "Half Eagles", and "Quarter
Eagles" were also authorized.(22) The ratio between gold and
silver (as then deemed accurate by the free market) was
established as 15:1.(23) The Eagle was to be "of the value of ten
dollars or units" so its weight was defined as 270.5 grains of
pure gold (each "dollars" worth of value being 24.75 grains of
gold or 1/15 of 371.25 thus keeping in line with the ratio of
15:1). Lesser Gold and Silver coins were also authorized and
their respective "weights" and "values" were also determined by
the standard--371.25 grains of silver. Thus Congress "fixed" the
standard of value as 371.25 grains of pure silver, called this
weight of silver a "Dollar", and "regulated" the value of other
gold and silver coins (both the newly minted coins whether gold
or silver and the Spanish milled Dollar) according to this
standard. It is important to note that gold coins, taking the
Eagle as an example, was not denominated in terms of "dollars"
but was simply called an "Eagle" which had an intrinsic free
market worth "of the value of ten dollars".(24)
Thus under English common law and that law as applied by the
Colonists, the Continental Congress and finally under the
Government of the United States Constitution a fixed weight of
silver was recognized as the standard by which to measure all
other coins both gold and silver. Adam Smith notes how the
general public largely understood the concepts of "fixing" a
standard and "regulating" the value of coinage:
as people become gradually more familiar with the use
of different metals in coin, and consequently better
acquainted with the proportion between their respective
values, it has in most countries. . . been found
convenient to ascertain this proportion, and to declare
by a public law, that a guinea (of gold), for example,
of such a weight and fineness, should exchange for one
and twenty shillings (of silver) or be a legal tender
for a debt of that amount. In this state of things, and
during the continuation of any one regulated proportion
of this kind, the distinction between the metal which
is the standard, and that which is not the standard,
becomes little more than a nominal distinction.(25)
Vieira notes how the founders used precise linguistic wording in
their use of the phrases "fix the standard" and "regulate. . .
value" and subtly diverge in meaning: The phrase "fix the standard" empowers Congress to
define the basic units of "Weights and Measures";
whereas, the phrase "regulate the Value" empowers
Congress only to apply the basic unit of "Value", which
the constitution elsewhere explicitly identifies as the
"dollar", a known, historically fixed weight of silver.
Moreover, whereas the verb "fix" as applied to "Weights
and Measures" implies "stability and confirmation", the
verb "regulate" as applied to coinage implies
continuous adjustment. . . the Framers. . . in one
phrase selecting the verb that connotes the
establishment of permanent "Standards", without which a
system of "Weights and Measures" cold not serve its
purpose; and, in the other, choosing the synonym that
connotes a process of inter-comparisons among changing
forms of coinage, according to a set "Money-Unit",
without which a monetary system involving both gold and
silver could not achieve its end.(26)
Congress remained faithful to this particular monetary
understanding through the six significant coinage acts up till
1857. In the coinage act of 1793 Congress recognized the need to
make "current" various foreign coins by enacting a statute
regulating their value and declaring that these "foreign gold and
silver coins shall pass current as money within the United
States. . . at [specified] rates". At the same time however,
Congress anticipated an adequate supply of United States coin by
providing that "all foreign coins except Spanish milled dollars
shall cease to be a legal tender" (Congress thus once again
endorsing the Spanish milled dollar as the basic unit of the
country).(27)
By 1834 two major problems began to appear: First, the free
market valued gold at a rate closer to a 16:1 ration than the
15:1 ratio determined by the Coinage Act of 1792; Second, Banks
proliferated--and began an over-issuance of paper currency.
Because the free market value of gold was higher than the ratio
established by Congress, due to the actions of Greshams law(28),
gold began to disappear from currency. The Coinage Act of 1834
addressed these two interrelated problems: First, by fixing the
ratio between gold and silver at 16:1, and consequently because
of this ratio change, authorized the Coining of new Eagles, Half
Eagles, and Quarter Eagles of reduced weights(29)
(because of the
new ratio), each to be of the value of ten dollars, five dollars
and two Dollars and fifty cents respectively; Second, by changing
to a higher ratio between silver and gold an attempt was made to
"strike a fatal blow at the ability of banks to sustain a
circulation of small-denomination currencies."(30)
In relation to the Act of 1834, First, the Select Committee
on Coins again stressed that the thing to be desired "in the
monetary system is a standard of uniform value" and that this
standard should be silver "the ancient currency of the United
States, the metal in which the money unit is exhibited"(31).
Second, Congress set the "Value" of the (gold) Eagle by referring
to the (silver) dollar, at the newly accepted market exchange
ratio, just as it had done in 1792. Third, Congress declared that
gold coins minted before the effective date of the act should be
valued thereafter at their intrinsic values according to the
revised exchange ratio. Finally, just as in 1792, Congress made
the new "gold coins . . . receivable in all payments, when of
full weight, according to their respective values; and when of
less than of full weight, at less values, proportioned to their
respective actual weights"(32) showing once again its understanding
that "To . . . regulate the Value" of a coin means to state its
intrinsic value (in weight of precious metal) as against the
standard, and to make it "current" or legal tender for that
"Value" only.
The United States Supreme Court in 1870 (as well as all
later decisions of the Court), grossly misunderstood the Coinage
Act of 1834.(33) Characterizing it as a debasement of the "gold
standard, a devaluation of the dollar, an expropriation of
creditors, an impairment of the obligation of contracts, or an
excercise of some supposedly unlimited legislative power to
transmute the denominations of coins without reference to their
intrinsic values!"(34) Vieira, explains in refutation of this
misunderstanding by the Supreme Court that:
First, on the face of the act, nothing "was taken from
the weight of each dollar". The act changed the
intrinsic values (in weight and fineness) of gold
coins, to be sure--but, neither in 1834 nor at any
previous time was there or had there been a "gold
dollar", from which any "weight" could be "taken". The
act made no change in--indeed, said nothing about--the
silver dollar. Instead, the act sub silentio retained
the dollar, unchanged, as Congress had defined it in
1792, and once again used the dollar as the standard by
which to "regulate" the new gold coinage.
Second, on the face of the act, no "creditors were
subjected to a corresponding loss" through any
"debasement" of the gold coinage. Again, the act
changed the intrinsic values (in weight and finess) of
gold coins in order properly to "regulate the Value" of
those coins as against the immutable silver standard.
But this was nether a "debasement" of the coinage nor
an "expropriation" of creditors in any constitutional
sense of those terms.(35)
In 1837 Congress enacted a "supplement" to the Coinage Act of
1792. This act retained the amounts of pure silver and pure gold
in the various silver and gold coins but merely adjusted the
alloy content of both silver and gold coins. In the case of the
"Dollar" the amount of pure silver remained at 371.25 grains and
for the "Eagle" came as close as possible or within 0.086% of its
weight as constitutionally regulated in 1834.(36) Thus the Coinage
act continued the principles first laid down in 1792.
The Coinage act of 1849 authorized the coinage of a small
gold coin "each to be of the value of one dollar or unit" which
was one-tenth the weight of an Eagle as defined by the Coinage
Act of 1837. Congress was careful however, to refer to this new
gold coin not "as a dollar, or the dollar, but as 'being of the
value of one dollar" thus referring to this coin in terms of
"regulating its Value as against the original (silver) standard
[371.25 grains of silver], not in terms of defining a new, or
competing standard."(37)
When Congress reset the ratio between gold and silver at
16:1 in 1834 everyone expected gold to continue to appreciate in
value against silver. Instead, due to the discovery of huge gold
deposits in California and Australia, the opposite situation
occurred. The Free Market first began to value gold at around a
15.7:1 ratio at which point, again due to Greshams Law, Silver
Coins ceased to circulate (just as the gold coins had stopped
circulating when gold was valued higher in the free market than
at the legal ratio). When the ratio diminished to a 15.5:1
ratio, it became possible to melt and export silver coins at a
profit. Congress failed to readjust a proper free market ratio
between gold and silver at this time but did act To remedy an
inadequate supply of silver coinage, by reducing the weight of
the half dollar so that the amount of pure silver in two half
dollars only amounted to 93.1% of the amount in the
Constitutional Dollar.(38) Congress however, limited the legal
tender ability of these coins to payment of debts. . . not
exceeding five dollars. Although these coins met the old common
law standard of "not [being] upon the same footing with the other
[Constitutional Coins]"(39) the wisdom of Congress in not properly
regulating a proper ratio between silver and gold is suspect.
By 1857, Congress apparently thinking that the United States
had enough of their own coinage, repealed "all former acts
authorizing the currency of foreign gold or silver coins, and
declaring the same a legal tender in payment of debts".(40) So,
for the first time since Queen Anne's Proclamation of 1704, the
actual Spanish dollar ceased to be the "money of account" in the
United States, being replaced by the United States Silver Dollar
first authorized in 1792.
From 1792 through 1857, Congress consistently interpreted
Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 5 both English and pre-constitutional history
support. For over sixty years from ratification of the
Constitution till just before the Civil War did Congress ever: 1.
Coin any metal as "Money" other than gold, silver or copper; 2.
change or vary from the constitutional standard of value, the
dollar as defined as 371.25 grains of pure silver; 3. regulate
the value of any nonsubsidiary coin at other than what Congress
determined in good faith was its intrinsic value in relation to
the dollar; 4. declare any non-subsidiary coin a legal tender for
more than its intrinsic value; 5. claim that it had any power
whatsoever to do otherwise in any of these particulars.
As modern Americans we might do well to remember our
monetary roots, our common law heritage, or even this admonition
from Isaiah, "Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with
water". (41) Of course Isaiah here is talking about Israel's
collective apostasy but it is interesting that Isaiah would talk
about it in terms of their monetary system. As is the case with
much of Isaiah--there is a multiple meaning at work here and he
meant their monetary apostasy as well. Perhaps modern America
would do well to repent from this apostasy so that the Lord can
"purge away [our paper money] dross, and take away [our monetized
debt] tin".(42)
ENDNOTES
1. Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1 and the Ninth Amendment.
2. Edwin Vieira Jr., Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and
Disabilities of the United States Constitution: A Study in
Constitutional Law, p. 62.
3. An Act for ascertaining the Rates of foreign coins in her
majesty's Plantations in America, 1707, 6 Anne, ch 30, Section I.
4. "all silver coins...to be estimated...according to the quantity
of silver they contain" and "gold coins...according to the
quantity of fine gold they contain and the proportion...which the
value of fine gold bears to that of fine silver" in the free
market. (Vieira, Op Cite, pg. 16.)
5. George Bancroft, The Constitution of the United States, p. 159)
Article 1, � 8, clause 2. The Congress shall have Power . . .
to borrow Money on the credit of the United States.
Article 1, � 8, clause 5. The Congress shall have Power . .
. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,
and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.
Article 1, � 8, clause 6. The Congress shall have Power . .
. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities
and current Coin of the United States.
Article 1, � 9, clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Article 1, � 10, clause 1. No State shall . . . coin Money;
emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a
Tender in Payment of Debts . . .
Amendment VII. In suits at common law, where the value in
controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by
jury shall be preserved.
13. Note the following statements by Vieira: "The current popular
concern with a "gold standard", and the long-standing notion that
the United States operated on such a standard until the 1930's
prompt one further clarification of the nature of the
Constitution's monetary system. Technically, adoption of the
(silver) dollar as the national money of account places the
country on the "silver standard", in the sense that the
constitutional unit consists of that metal. In practice, however,
both silver and gold are equally "standards" of the system,
because "regulation" of all gold coinage in terms of the (silver)
dollar must faithfully reflect the prevailing exchange-rate
between the metals in the free market--and, therefore, the
explicit constitutional "silver standard" is really just the
reciprocal of an implicit "gold standard", and vice-versa."
(Vieira, pg. 90-91.)
A doctrinaire, monometallic "silver standard" or "gold
standard" can emerge only if Congress misapplies its monetary
powers. As Von Mises points out, in the nineteenth century "the
demonetization of silver and the establishment of gold
monometallism was the outcome of deliberate government
interference with monetary matters. . . [I]t was not the
intention of the governments to establish the gold standard. What
the governments aimed at was the double standard. They wanted to
substitute a rigid, government-decreed exchange ratio between the
independently coexistent gold and silver coins. The monetary
doctrines underlying these endeavors misconstrued the market
phenomena in that complete way in which only bureaucrats can
misconstrue them. The attempts to create a double standard of
both metals . . . failed lamentably. It was this failure which
generated the gold standard. The emergence of the gold standard
was the manifestation of a crushing defeat of the governments and
their cherished doctrines". (Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action, ante
note 2, at 471. also quoted by Vieira in note 374 pg. 91)
Hamilton's personal view was that "a preference ought to be
given to neither [gold or silver]" but realized that there were
practical problems "from the fluctuations in the relative
[market] value of the metals", but would not be insurmountable if
"care" was "taken to regulate the proportion between them with an
eye to their average commercial value" and further that the
ration between gold and silver should "approach as nearly as can
be ascertained, the . . . average proportion. . . in . . . the
commercial world" and that "there can hardly be a better rule in
any country for the legal than the market proportion" and that
each "metal would "find its true level, according to their
intrinsic utility" if produced by "the free and steady course of
commercial principles". (Alexander Hamilton, Report on the
Subject of a Mint, p. 2060-2061)
14. "Money is an universal medium, or common standard, by
comparison with which the value all merchandize may be
ascertained:. . . a sign, which represents the respective values
of all commodities. Metals are well calculated for this sign,
because they are durable and are capable of many subdivisions:
and a precious metal is still better calculated for this purpose,
because it is the most portable. A metal is also the most proper
for a common measure, because it can easily be reduced to the
same standard in all nations: and every particular nation fixes
on it it's own impression, that the weight and standard (wherein
consists the intrinsic value) may both be known by inspection
only. . .
The coining of money is in all states the act of the
sovereign power; for the reason just mentioned, that it's value
may be known on inspection. And with respect to coinage in
general, there are three things to be considered therein; the
materials, the impression, and the denomination.
With regard to the materials, sir Edward Coke lays it down,
that the money of England must either be of gold or silver; and
none other was ever issued by the royal authority till 1762, when
copper farthings and half-pence were coined by king Charles the
second. . . But this copper coin is not upon the same footing
with the other in many respects. . .
As to the impression, the stamping thereof is the
unquestionable prerogative of the crown. . .
The denomination, or the value for which the coin is to pass
current, is likewise in the breast of the king. . . In order to
fix the value (note that Blackstone could easily have substituted
for his language "fix the value" the equivalent phrase "regulate
the value" as later appeared in Article I, Section 8, cl. 5 of
the Constitution. For the two verbs are synonymous. E.G. Black's
Law Dictionary (4th red. ed. 1968), at 1451, defines "regulate"
as "to fix, establish, or control".), the weight and the fineness
of the metal are to be taken into consideration together. When a
given weight of gold or silver is of a given fineness, it is then
of the true standard, and called sterling metal. . . And of this
sterling metal all the coin of the kingdom must be made, by the
statute 25 Edw. III c. 13. So that the king's prerogative
seemeth not to extend to the debasing or enhancing the value of
the coin, below or above the sterling value. . . The king may
also, by his proclamation, legitimate foreign coin, and make it
current here; declaring at what value it shall be taken in
payments. But this . . . ought to be by comparison with the
standard of our own coin; otherwise the consent of parliament
will be necessary." (William Blackstone, Commentaries, ante, note
10, at 276-278, as quoted by Vieira, pg. 4)
16. "From 1603 through 1816, England followed a bimetallic
monetary policy, whereby the law made no change in the character
of the silver coinage, but altered the weight and denomination of
the gold coinage in order to secure the concurrent circulation of
both." (S. Breckenridge, Legal Tender: A Study in English and
American Monetary History, [1903], at 43-46)
17. H. Bronson, "An Historical Account of Connecticut Currency,
Continental Currency, and the Finances of the Revolution", New
Haven Historical Society Papers, No. 1 (1865), at 14, 26; Davis,
"Currency and Banking in the Province of Massachusetts Bay" (pt
1), Pubs. Amer. Econ. Ass'n (3rd ser.), Vol. 1, No. 4 (1900), at
38; J. Felt, An Historical Account of Massachusetts Currency
(1839), at 26. As quoted by Vieira, pg. 5)
18. 5 Journals of the Continental Congress, ante note 37, at 714-25. as quoted by Vieira, pg. 16.
20. Thomas Jefferson at first (before he saw the wisdom of
maintaining the standard of the piece of eight) advocated making
the original money unit or dollar (A silver coin) of the weight
of one ounce or one cubic inch, rainwater exactly, 'measures,
weights and coins, thus referred to standards unchangeable in
their nature would themselves be unchangeable. (Jefferson's
Writings by H. A. Washington, Vol VII p. 490 as quoted in
Bakewell p. 49)
It was upon Alexander Hamilton's suggestion that the United
States adopt as its standard the already existing standard--that
of the Spanish piece of eight. Hamilton had a study performed of
the average weight of the piece of eight (which was determined to
be 371.25 grains of pure silver) and in his report for the 1st
Coinage Act stated: "There is scarcely any authority in the
economy of national affairs of greater moment that the uniform
preservation of the intrinsic value of the money unit" (Annals of
the First Congress, vol II, p. 211 as quoted by Bakewell p. 490)
29. "Each Eagle shall contain two hundred and thirty-two grains of
pure gold. . . Each Half Eagle one hundred and sixteen grains of
pure gold. . .each Quarter Eagle shall contain fifty-eight grains
of pure gold" (Coinage Act of 1834, as quoted by Bakewell, pg.
56.)
31. Report of 17 February 1834, in 10 id, Appendix, at 245, 246.
Daniel Webster made this comment on the Dollar as the fixed unit
of value or standard: "The Constitutional standard of value is
established and cannot be overthrown". (Webster's Works, pp. 271-280 as quoted in Bakewell p. 49)
32. Coinage Act of 28 June 1834, ch. 45, Section 1, 4 Stat.
699,700.
33. Early Supreme Court decisions maintained a fidelity to the
common law tradition by such statements as that it was the duty
of Congress to maintain the standard of value as an "important
trust" and had an "obligation to fulfill that trust. In 1857
Justice Washington wrote in an opinion: "The policy of the
Constitution was to provide a fixed and uniform standard of value
throughout the United States, by which the commercial and other
dealings between the citizens thereof, or between them and
foreigners, as well as the moneyed transactions of the government
should be regulated...and why establish a standard at all, for
the government of the various contracts which might be entered
into, if the contracts might afterwards be discharged by a
different standard?" (12 Wheaton p. 265)
Or statements such as that Congress has the "trust and duty
of creating and maintaining a uniform and pure metallic standard
of value throughout the United States. The power of Coining Money
and of regulating its value were delegated to Congress by the
Constitution for the very purpose, as assigned by the framers of
that instrument, of creating and preserving the uniformity and
purity of such a standard of value...
Whatever functions Congress are, by the Constitution
authorized to perform, they are, when the people's good requires
it, bound to perform, and on this principle, having emitted a
circulating medium, a standard of value indispensable for the
purposes of the community, and for the action of the government
itself, they are accordingly authorized and bound in duty to
prevent its debasement and expulsion." (9 Howard, p 568 as quoted
in Bakewell pg 48)
or that "[The] power of regulation is a power to determine
the weight, purity, form, impression, and denomination of the
several coins and their relation to each other, and the relations
of foreign coins to the monetary unit [or standard] of the United
States." (8 Wallace p. 616 as quoted by Bakewell p. 42)
Bakewell said in his summarizing these early statements of
the Supreme Court said: A. "A standard of value is indispensable
for the purposes of the Nation and for the action of the
government itself; B. The trust and duty of maintaining and
preserving the uniformity and purity of the metallic standard of
value is an obligation of the government imposed by the
Constitution; C. Having emitted a Standard of Value, Congress is
bound in duty to prevent its debasement." (Bakewell, p. 50,51)
