I have the honor herewith to transmit to the House of Representatives manuscript No. 2 of the opinions of the Attorneys General, prepared in pursuance of its resolution of July 24, 1850. To the Hon. HOWELL COBB, MILLARD FILLMORE. Speaker of the House of Representatives. Checked OPINIONS OF THE HON. EDMUND RANDOLPH, OF VIRGINIA: APPOINTED TO THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES SEPTEMBER 26, 1789.. INTEREST ON CERTIFICATES FOR 1791. Interest on certificates issued pursuant to the act of Congress passed August 4, 1790, is not allowable, and the courts would embarrass a system of finance by a determination in favor of interest for the year 1791. PHILADELPHIA, August 21, 1791. SIR: In the opinion given by Mr. Bradford and Mr. Ingersoll. I find the case of Mr. Robert Buchanan to be accurately stated; but after paying a respectful attention to the sentiments of those gentlemen, I am compelled to say that I differ in the conclusion drawn from that statement, for I cannot agree that any interest is to be received upon the certificate for the year 1791. I acknowledge that the certificate was issued in conformity with the act of Congress passed on the 4th of August, 1790, and that its silence. as to interest is no objection to such a claim, if that act warrants it. A subscription to a loan is therein proposed, payable in certificates issued for the domestic debt. Among these are some bearing an interest of six per cent., and others, called indents of interest, bearing no interest at all. Mr. Buchanan's certificate is founded upon indents of interest; and had they been subscribed, he would have been entitled to a certificate purporting that the United States owe to him, as the holder, or his assigns, the sum of $7,500, bearing an interest of three per centum per annum. He has not, however, subscribed those indents, but obtained the certificate from the Register of the Treasury before the 1st day of June, 1791, to wit: on the 16th of February, 1791, in pursuance of the tenth section of the above mentioned act. Upon the construction of that section the decision depends. The opinion asserts the first part of that section to be a substantive clause, and yet in the next sentence it connects that clause with the fol lowing parts of the section. The truth is, that the section itself forms one integer. The term creditors comprehends all holders of the domestic debt which might be subscribed to the loan, and was not. It is immedi· ately afterwards directed that such of them as possess the original certificates should exchange them for others, to be issued by the Register of the Treasury; consequently all the non-subscribing creditors are under the necessity of making this exchange, and, being so, must submit to the conditions prescribed for it. |