Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Publius2, post: 8394785, member: 105571&quot;]True, the only required $10,000 bond posted at the time of the July striking of half dismes was by Mint Treasurer Tristram Dalton.&nbsp; The other officers that required a bond; assayer and chief coiner, did not acquire their bonds until 1793 and 1794.&nbsp; This point (among others) was outlined in an article in the John Reich Journal of December, 2019 by Richard A. Izydore which argued the pattern point of view.</p><p><br /></p><p>A rebuttal was published in the same journal&#039;s April, 2020 issue by Joel J. Orosz and Leonard Augsberger.&nbsp; They argued that President Washington inquired of SoS Jefferson whether the present chief Coiner of the mint (Henry Voight) is properly authorized by the Resolution of Congress passed the 3d day of March 1791.&nbsp; Jefferson sent the request to Attorney General Edmund Randolph who replied that the President was authorized to make recess appointments and since Voight had been appointed when the Senate was in recess, and therefore not yet confirmed, the office of Chief Coiner was vacant and the President could not grant a temporary commission to Voight at Chief Coiner.&nbsp; I&#039;m not going to go into the rest of the legal points of the rebuttal except to say that since there was no duly appointed Chief Coiner there could be no requirement for a bond. </p><p><br /></p><p>The Chief Coiner and Assayer worked as recess appointment employees of the State Department until such time as they were bonded and approved by the Senate.</p><p><br /></p><p>Whether any of us agree with either point of view is pretty much immaterial since the Attorney General of the time said it was the case and no one filed a lawsuit or other impediment to the decision.</p><p><br /></p><p>One other point that I have not seen addressed anywhere with regards to the posting (or lack thereof) of surety bonds:</p><p><br /></p><p>The Chief Coiner posted bond and received Senate appointment approval January, 1793 but the Assayer was not bonded and Senate-approved until April, 1794.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now, we all know that the reason for the surety bonds was because of depositor&#039;s silver and gold that would be deposited with the Mint for coinage.&nbsp; And correspondence of the time indicates that is how the authorities of the time understood it.&nbsp; But nowhere within the Mint Acts of 1791 and 1792 is there any mention that the coining of copper was exempt from the requirement of a surety bond.&nbsp; If indeed, under a legal parsing of the Acts&#039; wording, a surety bond was required to coin circulating copper coinage then the copper coinage of 1793 was illegal because the assayer was not bonded until April, 1794.&nbsp; And whatever silver coinage was minted until that date was also not legal coinage.&nbsp; Thus, Mr. Izydore&#039;s argument against the illegality of the 1792 half disme would also invalidate all US Mint coinage up to April 1794.&nbsp; I don&#039;t think anyone thinks that is true but I would be delighted to hear further discussion on this point.</p><p><br /></p><p>Note that I don&#039;t agree with Mr. Izydore&#039;s point nor the extension of the logic as I&#039;ve outlined it.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in