« ПретходнаНастави »
contract in New Hampshire. Are those insur- Mr. Webster here took leave of the ques. ances all to be held void, upon the principle of tion of the power of a corporation created by the decision from Alabama ?
one of the States to make contracts in another. And as to notes issued by banks: if one in I now proceed, said Mr. Webster, to consider Alabama hold the notes of a bank incorporated whether there be anything in the law or conby Pennsylvania, are they void ? If one be stitution of the State of Alabama, which prerobbed there of such notes, is it no theft ? vents the agent of the United States Bank, in If one counterfeits those notes there, is it so that State, from making such a contract as crime? Are all such notes mere nullities, when that which is the foundation of this suit. out of the State where issued !
*It is said that the buying of a bill of (*563 Reference has been made to the statute books exchange by such agent is contrary to the pol. 562*] to show cases in *which the States have icy of the State of Alabama; and this is in forbidden foreign insurance companies from ferred from the law establishing the Bank of making insurances within their limits. But no Alabama; that bank being authorized to deal such prohibition has been shown against insur- in bills of exchange, and the constitution of the ances by citizens of, or companies created in, State authorizing the establishment of no other the different States. Is not this an exact case than one bank in the State. for the application of the rule exceptio probat This, said Mr. Webster, is a violent inferregulam? The fact of such prohibitory legis. ence. lation shows that citizens of other States have, How does the buying or selling bills of ex. and that citizens of foreign powers had, before change in Alabama, by another purchaser than the were excluded by law, the right to make the Bank of Alabama, infringe her policy? Be. insurances in any and every one of the States. cause, it is said, it diminishes the profits which
Mr. Webster next called the attention of the she derives from the dealings of the bank. court to the deposit law passed by Congress on Profit is her policy, it is argued; gain, her end. the 23d of June, 1836. It was, said he, one of Is it against her policy for Mr. Biddle to buy the conditions upon which, under that act, any bills, because his bank is incorporated, and not State bank should become a depository of the against her policy for Mr. Girard to buy bills, public money, that it should enter into obliga because his is not incorporated! Or, how far tions "to render to the government all the duo does she carry this policy imputed to her! Is ties and services heretofore required by law to no one to be allowed to buy or sell bills of ex. be performed by the late Bank of the United change in Alabama but a bank of her own, States, and its several branches or offices;" which may or may not be in credit, and may or that is, to remit money to any part of the Unit. may not be solvent! It would be strange, in. ed States, transfer it from one State to another, deed, were any State in this Union to adopt etc. But that act required, also, something such a policy as this. But, if the argument more: and it shows how little versed we in Con- founded on this inferred policy of Alabama gress were (and I take to myself my full share amounts to anything, it proves, not that incorof the shame) in the legal obstacles to the do-porated citizens of other States cannot buy or ing of acts in one State by corporations of sell bills there, but that it is the policy of Ala. other States. The first section of that act pro bama to prevent other citizens from buying vides that "in those States, territories, or dis bills at all in Alabama. tricts, in which there are no banks,” etc., the I think, said Mr. Webster, that there is no Secretary of the Treasury "may make arrange- just foundation for the inference of any such ment with a bank or banks in some other State, policy on the part of the State of Alabama. By territory, or district, to establish an agency or referring to Aikins' Digest of the laws of that agencies in the States, territories, or districts, State, it will be found that she has carried her 80 destitute of banks, as banks of deposit,” policy a little farther than merely the estab. etc. Here is an express recognition by Congress fishing of a bank. Her public officers are auof the power of a State bank to create an agent thorized to receive the notes of banks of other for the purpose of dealing as a bank in another States in payment of dues to her; and she has State or territory.
enacted laws to punish the forgery of notes of It has been said that as there is no law of other banks. Now, taking their acts together, comity under the law of nations between the considering them as a whole, the inference, States, it remains for the legislatures of the which has been drawn from her establishment several States to adopt, in their conduct to- of a State bank under her constitution is cerwards each other, as much of the principle of tainly not sustained. comity as they please. Here, then, there is to To consider this argument, however, more be negotiation between the States, to deter- closely: it is assumed by it, first, that the State mine how far they will observe this law of meant, by her legislation, to take to herself all comity. They are thus required to do precise the profits of banking within her territorial ly what they cannot do. States cannot make limits; and, second, that the act of buying and treaties nor compacts. A State cannot nego- selling a bill of exchange belongs to banking. tiate. It cannot even hold an Indian talk. And The profits of banking are derived more from Dow I would ask how it happens, at this time circulation than from exchange. If the State of the day, that this court shall be called upon meant, through her bank policy, to take all to make a decision contrary to the spirit of the the profits of banking, why has she not taken Constitution, and against the whole course of all the profits of circulation ? Not only has she decisions in this country and in Europe, and done no such thing, but she protects the circu. the undisputed practice under this government lation of notes of banks of other States. for fifty years, overturning the law of comity, Mr. Webster begged now to ask the particu. and leaving it to the States, each to establish lar attention of the court to this question: & comity for itself?
What is banking?
Alabama, in reference to banking, has done amounts of capital, for purposes not professedly nothing but establish a bank, and given it banking; one, especially, to carry on the minthe usual banking powers.
And when the ing business on a large scale. These companies learned counsel on the other side speak of bank- *issued promissory notes, payable on (*565 ing, what do they mean by it! À bank deals demand; and these notes readily got into cir. in exchanges; and it buys or builds houses also; culation as cash to the prejudice of the cir. 564") "80 do individuals. If there be anything culation of the Bank of England. But Parlia. peculiar in these acts by a bank, it must be not ment being at this time in great want of ready in the nature of the acts individually, but in money for the expenditures of the war on the the aggregate of the whole. What constitutes Continent, the bank proposed to double its capibanking, must be something peculiar. There tal, and to lend this new half of it to governare various acts of legislation, by different ment if government would secure to the bank States in this country, for granting or prevent an exclusive circulation of its notes. The stating the exercise of banking privileges. But has ute of the sixth of Anne, ch. 22, was accordingany law ever been passed to authorize or to ingly passed; which recites that other persons prevent the buying by an individual of a bill and divers corporations have presumed to borof exchange? No one has ever heard of such a row money, and to deal as a bank, contrary to thing. The laws to restrain banking have all former acts; and thereupon it is enacted that been directed to one end; that is, to repress the "no corporation, or more than six persons in unauthorized circulation of paper money. partnership, shall borrow, owe, or take up any There are various other functions performed by money on their bills and notes, payable at debanks; but, in discharging all these, they only mand, or at less than six months from the bordo what unincorporated individuals do. rowing." This provision has been often re-en
What is that, then, without which any in- acted, and constitutes the banking privilege of stitution is not a bank, and with which it is a the Bank of England. Competition was not bank? It is a power to issue promissory notes feared from the circulation of individual notes. with a view to their circulation as money. Hence individuals or partnerships of not more
Our ideas of banking have been derived than six persons have been at liberty to issue principally from the act constituting the first small notes, payable on demand; in other Bank of the United States, and the idea of that words, notes for circulation. And we know bank was borrowed from the Bank of England. that in the country such notes have extensively To ascertain the character and peculiar func circulated; but private bankers in London, in tions of the Bank of England, Mr. Webster had the neighborhood of the bank, though it was referred, and referred the court, to various au- lawful, have not found it useful to issue their thorities: to M'Culloch's Commercial Diction- own notes. So that the banking privilege of ary; to Smollett's continuation of Hume's the Bank of England consisted simply in the England; to Godfrey's History of the Bank privilege of issuing notes for circulation, while England, in Lord Somers' Tracts, 11th volume, that privilege is forbidden, by law, to all other 1st article; to Anderson's History of Commerce, corporations, and all large partnerships and as. etc.
sociations. The project of the Bank of England was con This privilege was restrained, in 1826, 80 as ceived, Mr. Webster said, by Mr. Paterson, a not to prohibit banking companies, except Scotch gentleman, who had traveled much within the distance of sixty-five miles of Lonabroad, and had seen somewhere (he believed don; and, at the same time, notes of the bank in Lombardy) a small bank which issued tickets were made a tender in payment of all debts, or promises of payment of money. From this except by the bank itself. This provision may he took the idea of a bank of circulation. That be considered as a new privilege; but it does was in 1694. At that time neither inland bills not belong to the original and essential idea of nor promissory notes were negotiable or trans- | banking. Mr. M'Culloch remarks, and truly, ferable, so as to enable the holder to bring suit that all that government has properly to do thereon in his own name. There was no nego- with banks is only so far as they are banks tiable paper except foreign bills of exchange. of issue. Upon the same principle the banks of Mr. Paterson's conception was that the notes other countries of Europe are incorporated, of the Bank of England should be negotiable with the privilege to issue and circulate notes toties quoties, or transferable from hand to as their distinctive character. Here Mr. Webhand, payable at the bank in specie, either on ster explained the character of the banks of demand or at very short sight. This conception France, Belgium, etc. had complete success, because there was then Now, how is it in our own country! When no other inland paper, either bills or notes, our State legislatures have undertaken to rewhich were negotiable. The whole field was strain banking, the great end in view has been occupied by Bank of England notes. In 1698 to prevent the circulation of notes. Mr. Webinland bills were made negotiable by act of ster here referred to the statute books of MasParliament; and in the fourth year of Queen sachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, and New Anne's reign promissory notes were made ne- Hampshire, for restraining unauthorized com. gotiable. Of course, after this everybody might panies from issuing notes of circulation. He issue promissory notes, and where they had then turned to the statute of Ohio, imposing a credit enougn they might circulate as money. punishment for unauthorized banking. Her law There is not much of novelty in the inventions defines, in the first place, what constitutes & of mankind. Under this state of things, that bank, viz., the issuing of notes which pass by took place in England which we have seen delivery, and intended for circulation as cash. 80 often take place among us, and which we That, said Mr. Webster, is the true definition of have put to the account of modern contrivance. a bank, as we understand it, in this country, Large companies were formed, with heavy Mr. Webster referred also to the laws of other
566') 'States, Maryland, New Jersey, Mis- | doing the vast number of contracts which souri, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina, would be affected by the affirmation here of South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, all to the the judgment rendered in the court below, be. same effect. The law of the State of Ala cause his object did not require that; his object bama herself, said he, is much more important, was to diminish the prospect of mischief, not to in this view of the case, than that of any other enlarge it. For myself, I see neither limit por State. The constitution of the State of Ala- end to the calamitous consequences of such a bama was established in 1819; the law creating decision. I do not know where it would not the bank of Alabama was passed in 1823. The reach, what interests it would not disturb, or constitution and this law are all the authorities how any part of the commercial system of the from which the inference has been drawn of country would be free from its influences, dithe policy of the State of Alabama. Did she rect or remote. And for what end is all this to suppose that by this law she was establishing be done! What practical evil calls for so harsh, such a monopoly of the purchase of bills of ex- not to say so rash, a remedy? And why now, change as has been contended for in this case? when existing systems and established opinions, Certainly not. For, by a law passed after when both the law and public sentiment have wards, she restrained the circulation of unau concurred in what has been found practically thorized bank notes; that is, notes not issued | so safe and so useful; why now, and why here, by some authorized banks. But did she also re- seek to introduce new and portentous doctrines ! strain dealings in exchange? She did no such If I were called upon to say what has struck thing. Nor is there anything, either in the con- me as most remarkable and wonderful in this titution or the laws of the State of Alabama, whole case, I would, instead of indulging in which shows that by banking she ever meant expletives, exaggerations, or exclamations, put more than the circulation of bills as currency. it down as the most extraordinary circum. There is nothing, therefore, in any law or any stance, that now, within a short month of the policy of Alabama, against the purchase of bills expiration of the first half century of our exist. of exchange by others as well as by the Bank ence under this Constitution, such a question of Alabama. She has prohibited by law other should have been made; that now, for the first transactions which are clearly banking transac- time, and here, for the last place on earth, such tions; but she has not touched this. If even doctrines as have been heard in its support her banking policy includes as well buying ex: should be brought forward. With all the rechange as circulation, and she guards against spect which I really entertain for the court be. competition in the one, and leaves the other low, and for the arguments which have been open, who can say, in the face of such evidence, delivered here on the same side, I must say that it is her policy to guard against what she that, in my judgment, the decision now under leaves free and unrestrained ?
revision by this court is, in its principle, antiIs there anything in the constitution, or any commercial and anti-social, new and unheard ground in the legislation of Alabama, to sus- of in our system, and calculated to break up tain the allegation which has been made of her the harmony which has so long prevailed among policy! If not, is the existence of such a the States and people of this Union. policy to be established here by construction, It is not, however, for the learned gentleman, and that construction far-fetched ?
nor for myself, to say here that we speak for Mr. Webster here rested his argument on this the country. We advance our sentiments and case, which, he said, had been discussed by our arguments, but they are without authority. others 80 ably as not to justify his occupying But it is for you, Mr. Chief Justice and judges, the time of the court by going farther into it. on this, as on other occasions of high impor.
The learned counsel on the other side had, in tance, to speak and to decide for the country. the course of his argument of yesterday, allud - The guardianship of her commercial interests; ed to the newspapers, which, he said, had treat the preservation of the harmonious intercourse ed the decision of the court below scornfully. of all her citizens; the fulfilling, in this respect, Mr. Webster said he was sorry to hear it; for of the great object of the Constitution, are in the learned judge had acted, in his decision, he your hands; and I am not to doubt that the had no doubt, under a high sense of duty. I trust will be so performed as to sustain at once have been told, said Mr. Webster, but I have high national objects and the character of this not seen it, that a press in this city, since this tribunal. case has been under consideration in this court, Mr. Ingersoll, for the defendant, said that has undertaken to speak, in a tone something although distinct considerations of universal, approaching to that of command, of the deci- of international, and of municipal law are in sion upon it to be expected from this court. volved in this case, he should not attempt to Such conduct is certainly greatly discreditable discriminate, but submit them altogether. The to the character of the country, as well as dis- judgment of the Circuit Court is against the respectful and injurious to the court.
plaintiff's right of action. For that judgment A learned gentleman on the other side said, two distinct reasons are given, viz.: 1. That the other day, that he thought he might regard the law of Alabama excludes banking in that himself, in this cause, as having the country State except as prescribed by its peculiar pro. for his client. He only meant, doubtless, to ex- visions; and, 2. That besides that local law, the press a strong opinion that the interest of the universal law excludes corporations not authorcountry required the case to be decided in his ized by the legislative power of such States as favor. I agree with the learned gentleman, did not charter them. The first reason ('568 and I go indeed far beyond him, in my estimate is enough to support the judgment, without 867*) of the importance of this case *to the regard to the second, with which this court is country. He did not take pains to show the not bound to concern itself. The corporation extent of the evil which would result from un. I question, therefore, is not necessarily an issue.
It matters not what the rule of general juris. | Huberus, article 3; 3 Dallas, 370, in note; Bank prudence may be as to corporations attempting of Marietta, 2 Randolph, 465; Pennington v. extraterritorial transactions, if the law of Ala- Townsend, 7 Wendell, 276. The word in Hubama be that banking is prohibited in that berus is "potestas," which Dallas translates State, whether by corporations or individuals. “rights” meaning as it does mean any species of The banking question rules the case by the right by written, common, or even usage law; banking interdict, without reference to the cor for no such power or right of one State can by poration question, on which the opposite argu. comity be supplanted by the law of another ment has spent itself in political denunciation. State. Comitas inter communitates is at most Alabama has a sovereign right to make bank a frail and evanescent substitute for law. Daling an affair of State; and an unbroken series las translates it courtesy, and it is really nothof the uniform judgments of the Supreme ing more. It is a law of reciprocal necessity, of Court of the United States affirms not only indispensable reciprocity of absolute charity to that State right, but the obligation of this do as you would be done by; without which court to conform to it. Mr. Ingersoll then read the harmony of nations would be incessantly the articles of the constitution of Alabama con- disturbed: but which, nevertheless, is no more cerning banks, and an act of the Assembly of than the highest obligation of charity, to love that State in 1836, by which the profits of our neighbors as we do ourselves, but not bet. banks are declared to be the resource substi- ter than ourselves. Its philosophy is well extuted for all other taxation of the State rev. plained by Judge Story by a classical quotation enue; and several passages of the case of The in his learned judgment in the case of Harvey State of Alabama v. Stebbins et al. Stewart's v. Richards, 1 Mason, 412, damus petimusque Alabama Reports, Vol. I. 299, which he urged as vicissim sub obtentu mutuæ necesitatis. Un. conclusive of the controversy. The constitu- less, therefore, the State of Georgia needs such tion, legislation, and adjudication of a sovereign concession by comity from the State of AlaState all unite in declaring that even its own bama, she is not bound to make it. One of the citizens shall not deal in banking, but agreeably cases involving this question is brought here by to its peculiar laws. The plaintiff bank had the Carrollton Bank of Louisiana, the law of not in any respect conformed to those laws. which State requires its judges to refer in their Consequently it cannot bank in Alabama, nor judgments to the written law of the State on recover there on a banking transaction there. which the judgments are founded, and prohibits The second reason of the Circuit Court that cor- the judges from ever leaving the State whose porations have no extraterritorial power may boundaries are established by the Constitution. be erroneous, and yet the plaintiff bank must How could the courts of Alabama or any other fail for the first reason; not because it is a cor- State reciprocate with Louisiana such regulaporation, but because it is a bank, no matter tions as these? In another of the cases, the where or whether incorporated, or partnership, United States Bank of Pennsylvania is the or individual, or even inhabitant and citizen of plaintiff, which bank, by the law of that State Alabama. It is enough that it attempted bank. conferring its charter, is closely connected with ing contrary to the local and peculiar law of the canals, railroads, schools, and other im. Alabama. That settles the question, without provements of Pennsylvania. Could any involving it with corporation law. The Bank stretch of comity give such provisions force in of the United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61, Alabama! It is not judicial comity, but the falls under this principle, too, because no citi comity of a State which its courts of judicature zens, including those of Alabama, can bank award. Story's Conflict of Laws, p. 37, sec. 38. there contrary to its laws.
No court, therefore, can allow it, but as the No comity interferes with this unquestion comity of the State, and not the court. Comable principle. It is the indisputable basis of ity, moreover, is international courtesy; never universal law that laws have no force beyond allowed between provinces, districts, counties, the territories of those who make them. This cities, or other parts of the same empire. The is one of the few principles of universal juris- connection between these United States is prudence universally acknowledged. The Unit- closer and more intimate than that of comity. ed States v. Bevans, 3 Wheaton, 386; 3 Dallas, Their Union by federal compact expressly set. 370, note, Huberus; Laussat's Fonblanque, book tles the relation of the States to each other, 4, ch. i. sec. 6,658 (444); 2 Kent's Commentaries, and leaves no room for tacit or constructive 3d edition, part 5, lecture 39, 457; Story's Con- comity to operate. A national Constitution flict of laws, sec. 23, p. 24; Henry on Foreign declares that no State shall enter into any Law, p. 1; The United States v. Owens, 2 treaty, alliance, or confederation, or, without Peters, 540; Bank v. Donnally, 8 Peters, 372; the consent of Congress, into any agreement or Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Peters, 736. compact with another State or foreign power.
It would be superfluous to multiply authori. Such union, with much providence and some ties for this indubitable position. In the case jealousy, has settled the powers anr relations last cited from 12 Peters, 740, this court of the respective States. An article of the carries it so far as to declare, and with perfect Constitution provides for the force and propriety, that an act of Parliament during the proof of public acts of State, for the [*570 569*] colonial condition of this country *was privileges and immunities of the citizens of not binding here. The only force allowed to each State in all the rest, for fugitives from laws extraterritorially is derived from interna- justice and fugitives from labor; leaving little tional comity, which never intervenes to set or nothing on this important subject to judicial aside either the written law or the common law, construction. For certain purposes these Unitor even the State policy or State interest of an ed States are one and the same nation; for other country. Henry, 2; Story's Conflict of others, quasi nation or close confederation, and Laws, page 33, sec. 32, 33; page 37, sec. 38; la mere confederation, but still a national con
federation for all powers not delegated to have no better right to supersede the treaty. them by the people and the States. According making authority by their own tacit underto the language of this court, in 12 Peters, standing than the traders who fetch peltries 720, the States are sovereign within themselves from the north or metals from the south. The as to all the powers not granted to the United borderers of the St. Lawrence, the Sabine, and States, and foreign to each other as to all oth the Arkansas, may arrange rude international cro. The argument of the judge determining codes with Canada, Mexico, and Texas, for the this case in the Circuit Court denies the exist- government of these United States, usurping ence of any comity whatever between these the powers of constituted authorities, as exsoveral States whose union constitutes a na parte professional opinions may usurp those of tion. Whether that argument be unquestion appointed judicature. There is no occasion for able or not, it is certain that their union makes any such irregularities. Every State of the them a nation. In the opinion of Chancellor United States has its all-sufficient common law Kent, lately published on this subject, a doubt and frequent legislation; while the law-making is intimated, whether, as the citizens of each power and the law-adjudging department of the State are entitled to all the privileges and Union are in constant being, rendering it immunities of citizens in the several States, it wholly unnecessary for illegitimate usage, acis competent to the State of Alabama to pre- tion, or habit, partial, personal, and selfish subyent citizens of Georgia or Pennsylvania from stitutes, to take the place of deliberate lawbanking in the former State. But this court making. It is at least doubtful whether either adjudged, in The Bank of the United States v. the federal or even the State judiciary of these Devaux, 5 Cranch, 61, that no corporation is a United States has the power to make laws by citizen; and it cannot be doubted that citizens comity. At all events it is a perilous faculty of Georgia and Pennsylvania are not entitled by comity to make common law for one State to more privileges and immunities in Alabama from the written law of another; and granting than that State vouchsafes to its own citizens. that State courts may exercise such jurisdicThat fuli faith and credit shall be given to tion, by no means infers that the federal juthe acts and public proceedings of the States in diciary may do it for the States. For this each other, seems to be as yet confined to ju- court to introduce a Georgia or Pennsylvania dicial acts. 3 Story's Commentaries, 174; Pen-bank into Alabama, would be more than the nington v. Townsend, 7 Wendell, 279. The laws Legislature of that State can do for its own of the different States are proved as foreign citizens, except as its peculiar constitutions laws in courts of justice; and that it would allow. lead to hutolerable confusion to make by com- Introducing or changing law is often a seri. ity the laws of any State the laws of every ous measure. It is the direct exercise of conother State, is demonstrated in Judge M'Kin- quest, and the most difficult. Diversities of ley's argument with a force which Chancellor laws, language, and local sympathies are the Kent's opinion attempts in vain to overthrow. ways of God to man, without which all nations
This is perhaps a question rather of politics would strive to have but one local habitation than jurisprudence. It may be granted that and one name. Droit d'aubaine, British alleStates can re-enact each other's laws, and so giance, the land exclusive law of the common adopt them, but it is submitted as clear that by law, all such seemingly severe and harsh prono agreement whatever can this be constitu- visions are pregnant with the philosophy of tionally effected. If, then, no agreement of Providence. A learned foreign lawyer (M. de States can do it, it cannot be done by comity Tocqueville, Vol. I. 99) considers these United of courts; otherwise construction would have States so many foreign nations, whose whole more power than legislation. The question is form the Union, of which originally, even not whether even one State, or the judicature every township was a sort of independent sovof one State, can by comity adopt the law of ereignty. Nothing like law can be more foranother State; but it is whether this great eign than that of Massachusetts and Louisiana addition to the law of a State can be made by to each other. It may be politic, it may be the judiciary of the United States; not for wise to try to abolish or mitigate these eg the United States: but whether the federal ju- trangements of locality; but it is no more prac. diciary can by comity incorporate the law of ticable to extirpate them than the barbarisms one of these United States with that of an- of war. This court has strenuously adjudged other. It may be questioned whether the ju that at any rate such is not the judicial funcdiciary of the United States can reciprocate tion. It does not and will not anticipate or comity with that of any foreign nation. All fabricate legislation. our federative law, political, civil, penal, fiscal, Furthermore: the objection to courts exmartial, and whatever else there is, is specific tending comity for States to banks is corroboand written. There is no common law of the rated by the consideration that banking is a 571) United States* but for principles and sovereign privilege. Making money, or a subdefinitions. The admiralty law, though of stitute for it, is of sovereign *faculty. (*572 large scope, is by constitutional grant, and the Wilson v. Spence, 1 Randolph, 100; Pennington revenue law is settled by legislation. Could v. Townsend, 7 Wend. 276. a court of the United States reciprocate ad- Mr. Ogden cites The People v. Utica, 15 Johnmiralty or revenue law with England, France son for Chief Justice Thompson's allegation or Mexico ?
that banking was not a franchise at common Chancellor Kent alleges international law of law. But of what banking is that allegation merchants; but if merchants may make laws made! Banking by deposit, by discount, or for nations, so may mariners, travelers, or bor. by circulation? If the latter, it is expressly derers. If merchants by sea, why not traders contradicted by Judge Roane and the Virginia ashore! Those of New York and Liverpool I court, as it is believed to be by all the authors