Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 180919, member: 112&quot;]I understand your point Conder, but perhaps it was the wording of a clause which permitted it - </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The bonds were only required of those 3 employees - they were not required of the engraver, nor were they required of the workmen described in section 2 of the same chapter. So if the engraver made the dies, and the workmen struck the coins, it seems to me that the coins would have been legal without the bonds having been posted. And this could have been done under the authority and at the direction of the Director of the Mint and the Secretary himself.</p><p><br /></p><p>Or, it could be said they worked around it by meeting the clause - &quot; to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury,&quot;. </p><p><br /></p><p>Now I&#039;ll admit, that may be weak. But it does seem like they could have used either method to meet the intent of the law, if not the letter to allow the new nation to begin striking coinage which they were in dire need of at the time. I&#039;m not trying to argue the point really, more trying to provide a different perspective of how they perhaps worked around a difficult problem at the time.</p><p><br /></p><p>By the way, we no longer need books to look this up, just an understanding of how the Library of Congress&#039;s web site works. Anyone can read it all for themselves by starting - <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&amp;fileName=001/llsl001.db&amp;recNum=369" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&amp;fileName=001/llsl001.db&amp;recNum=369" rel="nofollow">Right Here</a>[/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