Collected Political Writings of James Otis. Otis James

for, shall be intended to be in and for the money aforesaid.” The words “other money” in this act, in their just and natural construction, must mean, gold as well as other coined silver. Sterling alloy is the standard of our gold and silver. The fineness of the silver established by the act, must also be taken as the measure of the fineness of the silver mentioned in the act of 1749, and that act must be read, coined silver

      [print edition page 32]

      of sterling alloy, to make it intelligible. Now if the only standard of lawful money is sterling alloy, as it certainly is, as to silver, then I say by the reasoning of some gentlemen, no man can or ought to be obliged to take dollars (that is they are not a tender any more than any other bullion) for the act of 1749 don’t in so many words say dollars shall be a tender. It says indeed, that they shall be received at 6s. and at no higher rate; but if this obliges a man to take them at that rate, as there is a little difference between dollars at 6s. and an english crown at 6s. 8d. why here is two standards say they. But this difference is accounted for by his Honor, to wit, to keep out hammered money and encourage the bringing in the dollars, and the dollars have ever been deemed a tender at 6s. and as good a tender as an English Crown at 6s. 8d. and this brings us to the Act of 23 G. II C v. entitled “An act for ascertaining the rates at which coined silver and gold, &c. may pass within this government.” No lawyer ever doubted (that I heard of till the last session of the court) but gold was a tender according to the rates set in this act, which are the exact proportion to sterling silver. It is observable that an English Crown which is the standard for silver with the denomination of 6s 8d. is one of the coins enumerated, which is one reason to conjecture that, the several species there enumerated were intended for money and consequently a tender. The cotemporery usage is another good argument among lawyers to prove such intent. Every one knows they have ever since been taken as money. And if nonuser, for 60 years, is not a sufficient argument, against the general words of an act, yet surely the universal practice for seven years after is an argument in favour of my construction. The words are “that they shall not be received, taken or payed at any greater or higher rate,” but it is further enacted that fifty pounds penalty shall be forfeited by those who, “receive or pay” them at a greater or higher rate than there regulated and settled, as well as allowed: now settled, to be received and paid, looks to me like fixing the price, and making money of them, and consequently a tender. It has been observed that the act of Parliament, for regulating the price of gold, tho’ it enacts that Guineas shall not be current at more that 28s., has a proviso, that none shall be obliged to take them at that; to which I answer, as heretofore, 1. That this very proviso shows the sense of the parliament, that without that proviso they would have been a tender at 28s. 2. 28s. is 7s. more than they are worth, but our act has put them at their exact sterling standard value. But as some doubt has risen about gold being a tender at any fixed value, it ought to be settled as explicitly as possible in an explanatory act. And if the rates of gold and silver, are not well adjusted, (as I agree with his Honor upon his first thoughts they already are, and with his last thoughts, that) upon a discovery of any mistakes, they ought to be rectified. The invarible standard of silver will not be effected by gold’s

      [print edition page 33]

      being a tender at a fixed rate, any more than by dollars being a tender; when a man tenders me a dollar for 6s. it must be one that in weight and fineness is as 6s. to 6s 8d. or I am not obliged to take it any more than a counterfeit, and for so much as it wants of standard it is as bad as counterfeit, except here the two pence an ounce allowed for coinage and to encourage their importation, which has made no difficulty, nor will. The same reasoning will hold as to a Johannes, or any other gold coin compared to the sterling standard of gold, tho’ by the way they now stand in the true proportion, if the gold is as good, which has hitherto been supposed. In one word, what inconvenience can possibly happen here, from having standard gold as well as silver? which, as I have said, I think we have already, tho’ it has been much disputed of late, and is a matter of such importance, that it ought soon to be rendered indisputable one way or the other. I have asked the above question often but never had any satisfactory answer. At present I will suppose all his Honor’s calculations to be right, tho’ I hear he is convinced that some few of them are wrong, and others may hereafter prove to be so. In the mean time, if this position of his Honor’s be true, that “whatever is the proportion between gold and silver bullion in England, the same must be kept in the colonies,” what becomes of the invariable perpetual standard? I now promise to pay to any man that can fairly reconcile to my mind, a perpetual invariable standard, with a perpetual varying price of silver and gold bullion in England, a praemium equal to any that has been appropriated for the discovery of a perpetual motion, the squaring of the circle, or the invention of longitude. As to the singular reason subjoined to this position, which seems to imply that, most of our gold and silver must go; I answer, if that is inevitably necessary, all our puzzle, about altering denominations, will be of no more avail, than a boy playing crickets to day and marbles to morrow.

      What mighty matter is it which goes first, gold or silver, if both must go, and we are to be reduced to an absolute state of poverty (which truly is threatned from more quarters than one) and made as hungry as hounds before our bellies or our pockets can be well filled again. But of this newly discovered way of growing rich, more hereafter.

      As to the hint which seems to be given to the parliament, the only inference I make from the facts it is grounded upon, is that, they further manifest the impracticability of a perpetual invariable standard, which yet requires that “the same proportions should be kept here between the several species of it, as between gold and silver bullion in England.”

      The question returns again, “What is to be done to prevent any [myschevious?] effects?” It was proposed in the house, that in our present circumstances, we had best as a province, contract for the future in gold, and make it

      [print edition page 34]

      more explicitly a tender. To this it was and is again objected that “it is contrary to the principle the government prosessed in 1749 and will be a violation of the public faith.” It may be answered, there is nothing in the act of 1749 that restrains the province, or a private man, from making a new bargain; if both parties concerned agree no body is hurt. It was the universal sense of the house not to break in upon any former special contract for dollars or any thing else, so far from it, that it was agreed to send gold to Spain to purchase dollars, if the creditors were so exact as to insist upon it. As to the distinction between public and private debts, I never heard any one contend that there ought to be any difference between them as to the punctuality of payment, or in any other respect. It was contended, and is yet, and it is to be hoped will be, that if a private man has a right to make a new bargain, so has the public. And if the province has not this right, it seems to me, to be under as strict a guardianship, as the poor-indians; so all the surprise about a wimsical conscience might have been omitted. We are informed “that there is no more difference between the promise of silver at 6s 8d. per ounce, and a promise for lawful money as the law now stands, than between a promise for a crown, and a promise for 5s.” This no one ever doubted, as I know of, tho’ there is reason to think, a certain gentleman imagined the whole house of representatives ignorant of this wonderful discovery; or he would hardly have proposed an amendment of a money bill, and the inserting of lawful money instead of gold. This with actually sending down a money bill, with such an amendment, and the manner of the proposal, &c. was as great an insult, as ever in the plenitude and zenith of power was offered to a house.

      China is the only country in the world where gold is not money, or a tender.

      That guineas can’t be refused as a tender in England at 21s, is in my opinion as clear law, as that George the Third is rightful King of Great Britain. Some have admitted that gold is a tender in law, but say it is so only at the market price. A new kind of tender this. A man at Sheffield must gallop to Boston to learn from the course of exchange, the market price of gold, and by the time he gets home, it may be altered, and so besides seeing a lawyer, and his trouble, he has a bill of cost to pay his litigious creditor.

      His Honor proposes to reduce the Johannes only to 46s,