"Madison, agreeing with the journal of the convention, records that the grant of power to emit bills of credit was refused by a majority of more than four to one. Eleven men took part in the discussion; and every one of the eleven whether he spoke for or against the grant of the power, Gouverneur Morris, Pierce Butler, James Madison, Nathaniel Gorham, George Mason, John F. Mercer, Oliver Ellsworth, Edmund Randolph, James Wilson, George Reed and John Langdon, each and all, understood the vote to be a denial to the legislature of the United States of the power to emit paper money. Take the men, one by one, and see how weighty is the witness of each individual; take them together and add the consideration that they, every one of them, unanimously support each other and are contradicted by no one, and who shall dare question their testimony? The evidence is perfect; no power to emit paper money was granted to the legislature of the United States.
"By refusing to the United States the power of issuing bills of credit, the victory over paper money was but half complete. The same James Wilson, who twelve days before, with Oliver Ellsworth, had taken a chief part in refusing to the United States the power to emit paper money, and the same Roger Sherman, who in 1752 had put forth all his energy to break up paper money in Connecticut, jointly took the lead. The first draft of the Constitution had forbidden the states to emit bills of credit without the consent of the legislature of the United States; on the 28th of August they jointly offered this motion: 'No state shall coin money, nor emit bills of credit, nor make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts,' making the prohibition absolute. Roger Sherman, animated by zeal for the welfare of the coming republic of countless millions, exclaims in the debate: 'This is the favorable crisis for crushing paper money.' His word was the will of the convention, and the states, by a majority of eight and a half against one and a half—that is, by more than five to one—forbade the states, under any circumstances, to emit bills of credit. This is the way in which our Constitution 'shut and barred the door against paper money' and 'crushed' it.
"Nothing is wanted to the perfect strength of the truth, that the constitution put an end to paper money in all the United States and in all the several states.... 'No suggestion of the existence of a power to make paper a legal tender can be found in the legislative history of the country. Had such a power lurked in the Constitution, as constructed by those who ordained and administered it, we should find it so recorded. The occasion for referring to it has repeatedly arisen; and had such a power existed, it would have been recognized and acted on. It is hardly too much to say, therefore, that the uniform and universal judgment of statesmen, jurists, and lawyers has denied the constitutional right of Congress to make paper a legal tender for debts to any extent whatever.'"
Thomas Jefferson's opinion: "The Federal Government—I deny their power to make paper a legal tender."
Mr. Banker: Now, Mr. Lawyer, you undoubtedly with all your profession will recognize Daniel Webster as the greatest expounder of the Constitution. I want you to read what he says and then my case will be closed on the constitutional right and authority of the Government to issue paper money.
Mr. Lawyer: I will gladly do so. "Most unquestionably there is no legal tender, and there can be no legal tender, in this country, under the authority of this Government or any other, but gold and silver, either the coinage of our own mints, or foreign coins, at rates regulated by Congress. This is a constitutional principle, perfectly plain, and of the very highest importance. The states are expressly prohibited from making anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts; and although no such express prohibition is applied to Congress, yet as Congress has no power granted to it, in this respect, but to coin money and to regulate the value of foreign coins, it clearly has no power to substitute paper, or anything else, for coin, as a tender in payment of debts and in discharge of contracts. Congress has exercised this power, fully, in both its branches. It has coined money, and still coins it; it has regulated the value of foreign coins, and still regulates their value. The legal tender, therefore, the constitutional standard of value is established and cannot be overthrown. To overthrow it would shake the whole system. The constitutional tender is the thing to be preserved, and it ought to be preserved sacredly, under all circumstances."
Mr. Merchant: Well, Mr. Lawyer, what do you really think about the constitutional question now?
Mr. Lawyer: In the light of the facts preceding the Constitutional Convention, the personal opinions of those who framed it, and what they actually did in the convention, I will admit I have not a leg to stand on. The story of our experience so well told by you gentlemen demonstrating the utter unwisdom of government issues of money, and the overwhelming evidence on the constitutional question has completely converted me to your contention. But I was relying in a sort of a blind way upon the fact that our Supreme Court has held that the United States notes were lawfully issued. How about that? Have you investigated it?
Mr. Banker: I have, but the story of the Greenback will take the best part of another night. Therefore, I move we adjourn. It is enough glory for one night to have a layman knock out a lawyer upon a constitutional question.
Mr. Lawyer: There is no humiliation in being shown that you are wrong upon so great a question; I regard it as a piece of disgraceful cowardice for a man to persist in holding to a position when he is clearly wrong.