t is that _bill of credit_ which a _State cannot emit_. He
says: 'If the prohibition means anything, if the words are not empty
sounds, it must comprehend the emission of _any paper medium_ by a State
Government, for the purpose of _common circulation_.' And he also says:
'Bills of credit signify a _paper medium_, intended to _circulate_
between individuals, and between Government and individuals, for the
ordinary purposes of society.' That the notes of the Bank of Kentucky
came within this definition and decision, is clearly stated by Justice
Story. In that case also it was expressly decided, that if the issues be
unconstitutional, _the notes given for the loan of them_ ARE VOID. It is
said, however, that the bills are issued by a bank, not by the State;
but the bank is created by the State, and authorized by the State to
issue these notes, to circulate as money. In the language of Chief
Justice Marshall, in this case, 'And can this make any real difference?
Is the proposition to be maintained that the Constitution meant to
prohibit names and not things?' On this subject, Justice Story says:
'That a State may rightfully evade the prohibitions of the Constitution
by acting through the _instrumentality of agents_ in the evasion,
instead of acting in its _own direct name_, is a doctrine to which I can
never subscribe,' etc. I am conscious that Justice Story also said in
the same case, _arguendo_: 'the States may create banks as well as other
corporations, upon _private capital_; and, SO FAR AS THIS PROHIBITION IS
CONCERNED, may rightfully authorize them to issue bank bills or notes as
currency, subject always to the _control of Congress_, whose powers
extend to the _entire regulation of the currency of the country_.' It
will be observed, that Justice Story gives no opinion as to whether the
issues of such banks are constitutional, whether they conflict or not
with the power of Congress to regulate coin or commerce. He only says
(and the limitation is most significant), they do not violate the
prohibition as to bills of credit (from which I dissent); but he does
declare that to Congress belongs '_the entire regulation of the
currency_.' Now this power must rest on the authority of Congress to
regulate coin and commerce. But these powers, we have seen, were not
concurrent, but _exclusive_; and, in the language of Chief Justice
Marshall, in delivering the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in
the case before quoted from 4