Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Publius2, post: 8396337, member: 105571&quot;]Edmund Randolph&#039;s legal opinion was that the President was operating under the Resolution of 1791, not the Mint Act of 1792 and could thus hire anyone needed to make a start at coinage.&nbsp; Thus, there was no actual need in July, 1792 for a Senate-approved and bonded &quot;duly-appointed&quot; coiner.&nbsp; BTW, Henry Voight received a temporary appointment as Chief Coiner on or about June 1, 1792.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Good point.&nbsp; However, the Mint Act of 1792 defines metal content for gold, silver, and copper coins.&nbsp; Albeit in much greater definition for gold and silver than for copper, understandably.&nbsp; Nevertheless, the assayer would be required in his duties to assay incoming government supplies of copper and to test the alloyed product of the melter and refiner to assure compliance with the alloying requirements of not only the gold and silver coinage but also the copper coinage.&nbsp; The Mint Act of 1792 lays out certain responsibilities of the Assayer but clearly not all.&nbsp; Would not the surety bond apply to the unstated responsibilities as well as those listed in the Act?&nbsp; It can be argued both ways but in reading history and the subsequent views and written records of those involved, it is apparent they believed the surety bond was only required for the function of the depositors&#039; gold and silver.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now, I think that in these very early days of trying to get something going, there were a lot of &quot;let&#039;s try this and see how it goes&quot; while making some effort to be as compliant with law as possible.&nbsp; There were also at the time many practices and assumptions that were implicit in the writing and execution of laws, such as the purpose and applicability of surety bonds.&nbsp; IOW, everyone understood that the surety bond was only for the purpose of avoiding fraud and to give PM depositors confidence that they were handing over their PM to honest and responsible individuals and thus surety bonds were not required for the government purchase and coinage of copper.&nbsp; An implicitly understood exemption but not explicitly stated.</p><p><br /></p><p>According to the Attorney General of the United States at the time, Edmund Randolph, the mint in July 1792 was operating under the direct control of the President in accordance with the Resolution of 1791, not the Mint Act of 1792.&nbsp; There is a lot of argument about the legality of the 1792 half dismes that are made with respect to the provisions of the Act of 1792 but those provisions do not apply, at least according to the consulted legal authority of the time with respect to the appointments clause.</p><p><br /></p><p>My conclusion from all this and much else that has gone unstated in this thread is that good-faith efforts were made by the officials to be legally compliant but that the July half-disme coinage was authorized to proceed with some winking at the letter of the law.&nbsp; That doesn&#039;t make the coinage illegal nor define its purpose as a pattern versus the intention of creating a demonstration project in circulating coinage.[/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