“Federal Reserve notes” & “federal reserve notes”?

Jump to Comments

The dollar bills in your wallet are denominated in all-upper-case words as “FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES”. This language is ambiguous since “FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES” could mean, “Federal Reserve Notes,” “federal reserve notes,” “Federal reserve notes,” etc., etc..

Title 12 (Banks and Banking) of the United States Code, Sections 411 and 415 do not clearly declare but at least imply that there may be two kinds of “FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES”: 1) “federal reserve notes” (under Section 411) and 2) “Federal Reserve notes” (under Section 415). If so, the 411-frn’s are “obligations of the United States” that can be used to pay taxes and are also redeemable in “lawful money of the United States” while the 415-FRn’s appear to be private currency of the Federal Reserve banks that are not expressly suitable for paying taxes, and aren’t redeemable in “lawful money” (gold or silver coin).

If it turned out that these implied distinctions were real, given that we can no longer redeem our “FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES” for “lawful money” (gold and silver), we might speculate that the Section 411 “federal reserve notes” are no longer in circulation and the FRn’s in your pocket must be privately-issued Section 415 “Federal Reserve notes”.

IF that speculation were true, a very number of very interesting questions come to mind. For example, if we can only lawful discharge our taxes with 411-frn’s, but only 415-FRn’s are in circulation, how can we legally pay income taxes? How can income taxes be imposed if the only currency available for discharging our debts cannot legally discharge our taxes? In fact, is any tax even due on income received in 12 USC Section 415-FRn’s?

Again, all of these questions are based on pure speculation concerning little more than an apparent difference in capitalization between “federal reserve notes” and “Federal Reserve notes”. Is this distinction real, or merely a grammatical error, or perhaps even a grammatical insignificance?

I don’t know. But consider:

* United States Code o TITLE 12 – BANKS AND BANKING

+ CHAPTER 3 – FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

# SUBCHAPTER XII – FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES [All caps; impossible to know if they mean “Federal Reserve Notes,” “Federal reserve notes,” or “Federal Reserve notes”.]

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04

12 U.S.C. Section 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

[the actual text of Section 411:]

“Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.”

[The text of Section 411 with my inserted comments:]

Federal reserve notes [Note that the “F” in “Federal reserve notes” is capitalized—but probably as the first word in the sentence. The “r” in “reserve” and “n” in “notes” are not capitalized. Thus, 12 USC 411 may deal with “Federal reserve notes” but probably deals with “federal reserve notes”. Contrast the Section 411 reference to “federal reserve notes” to the 12 USC 415 (infra) reference to “Federal Reserve notes”. Is this difference in capitalization a grammatical error or are there two (or more?) kinds of “federal reserve notes”? I find it hard to believe that there are any grammatical errors in code sections that are so critical—especially grammatical errors that may have remained uncorrected over a period 74 years.], to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances [“advances” of what? Credit?] to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents [who the heck is that? Is anyone who uses FRNs or operates a bank account presumed to be such “agent”?] as hereinafter set forth [where?] and for no other purpose, are authorized. [First, what, exactly, does “authorized” mean? Second, the “federal reserve notes” of 12 USC 411 (411-frn’s) are “authorized” for a single purpose—but there is no similar “single purpose” restriction on Section 415 “Federal Reserve notes” (415-FRn’s, below). What would happen if you were to expressly use 411-frn’s for some other purpose, or if you challenged any use for any other “purpose” as illegal?] The said notes [411-frn’s] shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable [= “receivables”??] by all national [??] and member banks [“member” of what?] and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues.

[These 411-frn’s are “receivable” (“receivables”?) 1) by the national, member and FR banks; and 2) for all taxes, customs and “other public dues”.

But when they write “all taxes, customs and other public dues,” do they mean both federal and State taxes? I don’t see how. The statute underlying 12 USC 411 was enacted in A.D. 1934 when the States of the Union were still solvent. Those States were prohibited by Art. 1.10.1 of the Constitution of the United Statees from “making any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”. This A.D. 1934 statute could not have amended and overridden the Constitution. Therefore 411-frn’s are probably only issued and authorized for the purpose of being “received” (not necessarily “paying”) all federal taxes and “public dues”.

This conjecture makes some sense since the 411-frn’s are expressly declared to be “obligations of the United States”. As such, I should be able to use a legitimate “obligation of the United States” to “pay” or “set off” any debt I might have to the same “United States”.

The “public dues” may implicate 14^th Amendment citizenship.

The “United States” is probably the singular, “national” U.S. found in the 14^th Amendment. The “obligations of the United States” sound like a federal I.O.U. which, though given to the Federal Reserve System, could be used by subsequent holders in due course as “receivables” capable of discharging debt owed to the federales. The process could be a “set-off” whereby the feds owe a debt to the Federal Reserve System and/or the Federal Reserve banks, those banks transfer the 411-frn’s (U.S. IOUs) to private parties (like you and me), and then we private parties use the 411-frn’s to “set off” our debts to the federal government and/or the singular “United States”. If so, the 411-frn’s may be nothing more than the gov-co’s “marker” that can be bought, sold and traded among the world’s “bookies”.]

They [411-frn’s; obligations of the United States] shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

[First, unless the “demands” have been made improperly and/or the Treasury Department has not been properly identified, it seems clear that current “FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES” (that’s the text on modern currency) are no longer “redeemable” in “lawful money”. Does this mean: 1) that the law codified at 12 USC 411 is being routinely violated; or 2) whatever currency is currently found in our wallets is no longer true Section 411-“federal reserve notes”;

Second, note that the right to demand redemption in lawful money only applies to 411-frn’s. If 12 USC 415 (infra) actually designates a second kind of currency called “Federal Reserve notes” (415-FRn’s) then there may be no right of redemption for 415-FRn’s. This could explain why, despite the law at 12 USC 411, you can’t redeem your current 415-FRn’s at the Federal Reserve banks and/or Treasury. But if that’s true, then there’s two kinds of “FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES”—one redeemable in “lawful money” and one irredeemable.]

Section 411 – Notes

SOURCE

(Dec. 23, , ch. 6, Sec. 16 (par.), 38 Stat. 265; Jan. 30, 1934, ch. 6, Sec. 2(b)(1), 48 Stat. 337; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, Sec. 203(a), 49 Stat. 704.)

REFERENCES IN TEXT

Phrase “hereinafter set forth” is from section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act, act Dec. 23, 1913. Reference probably means as set forth in sections 17 et seq. of the Federal Reserve Act. For classification of these sections to the Code, see Tables.

[“Probably,” my ass. How can law passed in A.D. 1934 that gave us 12 USC 411 include terms as “hereinafter set forth” from a law that had already been enacted in A.D. 1913—33 years earlier?

There is no way that the U.S.C. writers can’t know or didn’t find out after, now, 74 years what “hereinafter set forth” means. The 12 USC 411 law is too important to have included that ambiguity for most of a century. Therefore, I suspect that “as hereinafter set forth” is not an ambiguity; it is a deception. Whatever “as hereinafter set forth” refers to, it’s a subject that the system doesn’t want revealed. This implies that any challenge that brought a question based on “as hereinafter set forth” into issue might possibly result in a dismissal on other grounds.

What could the “as hereinafter set forth” phrase mean? Well, in total it reads “through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth.” Thus, the “hereinafter appears to refer to the identity of the “Federal reserve agents” and tells us that their identity would be sometime later “set forth”. Who th’ heck are the “Federal reserve agents”?

By using FRNs, are we deemed to be such “agents”? Or, by using FRNs when we are known not to be such “agents” are we deemed to be violating the statute and therefore guilty of negligence (in torte?)?

Inquiring minds wanna know: Who the heck are the “Federal reserve agents”?]

CODIFICATION

Section is comprised of [only the] first par. of section 16 of act Dec. 23, 1913. Pars. 2 to 4, 5, and 6, 7, 8 to 11, 13 and 14 of section 16, and pars. 15 to 18 of section 16 as added June 21, 1917, ch. 32, Sec. 8, 40 Stat. 238, are classified to sections 412 to 414, 415, 416, 418 to 421, 360, 248-1, and 467, respectively, of this title. Par. 12 of section 16, formerly classified to section 422 of this title, was repealed by act June 26, 1934, ch. 756, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1225.

[This particular code section is incomplete. The entire law is broken up into multiple “code sections”. The original laws as well as all relevant code sections should be studied.]

AMENDMENTS

1934 – Act Jan. 30, 1934, struck out from last sentence provision permitting redemption in gold. [But left redemption in silver?]

CHANGE OF NAME

Section 203(a) of act Aug. 23, 1935, changed name of Federal Reserve Board to Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

[When they changed the name, they probably changed the nature of the entity “named”. The right of “naming” also implies superior authority. If Congress changed the name of the Federal Reserve Board, Congress arguably demonstrated its superior power and authority over that Board.

However, it is possible that Congress made that change on instructions from their boss—the Federal Reserve Board.

We can wonder about the reason for the “name change,” but was it truly a mere “name change”? I.e., did the “Federal Reserve Board” simply change its letterheads and business cards and morph into the “Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System”? Or are the “Federal Reserve Board” and “Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System” two entirely different entities? And if they are two entirely different entities, what happened to the original “Federal Reserve Board”? Was it abandoned and terminated when the “Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System” stepped in? Or does the original “Federal Reserve Board” still exist in the background shadows as the real power behind both the “Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System” and the Congress?]

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in sections 348, 420, 421, 467 of this title.

A Findlaw.com search of the U.S.C. for the term “lawful money of the United States” resulted in four hits:

* United States Code o TITLE 12 – BANKS AND BANKING

+ CHAPTER 3 – FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

# SUBCHAPTER XII - FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04

12 U.S.C. Section 415. Reduction of liability for outstanding notes by depositing notes and collateral and payment of notes of series prior to 1928; reissue of deposited notes

[The actual text of Section 415 reads as follows:]

“Any Federal Reserve bank may at any time reduce its liability for outstanding Federal Reserve notes by depositing with the Federal Reserve agent its Federal Reserve notes, gold certificates, Special Drawing Right certificates, or lawful money of the United States. Federal Reserve notes so deposited shall not be reissued, except upon compliance with the conditions of an original issue. The liability of a Federal Reserve bank with respect to its outstanding Federal Reserve notes shall be reduced by an amount paid by such bank to the Secretary of the Treasury under section 4 of the Old Series Currency Adjustment Act.

[The text of 12 USC 415 with my comments reads as follows:]

Any Federal Reserve bank may at any time reduce its liability for outstanding Federal Reserve notes [12 USC 411 (supra) expressly refers to “Federal reserve notes”—and most likely, the word “Federal” is capitalized only because it’s the first word in a sentence. If so, the 12 USC 411 actually refers to “federal reserve notes”. Is this discrepancy the result of a grammatical error or are there two (or more?) kinds of “federal reserve notes”? I find it extremely hard to believe that there are any grammatical errors in text that is so critical—especially those that have remained uncorrected over a period 74 years.] by depositing with the Federal Reserve agent its Federal Reserve notes

[The word “its” might mean mere possession, but it might also mean that these Section 415 “Federal Reserve notes” might have issued by the particular Federal Reserve bank—or even by the Federal Reserve System. If so, these “Federal Reserve notes” would truly be a “liability” of the particular Federal Reserve bank and/or the Federal Reserve System. As such “liability” of a Federal Reserve bank, would these “Federal Reserve notes” be distinct from the “federal reserve notes” (12 USC 411) that are “obligations of the United States”? Can a single note be both an “obligation of the United States” and a “liability for a Federal Reserve bank?

Is it possible that “federal reserve notes” (12 USC 411) is a generic term that implicates notes issued by the “Federal government” (and are therefore an “obligation of the United States”) but not privately issued by the “Federal Reserve” banks or “System”? Something along those lines may explain the discrepancy between “federal reserve notes” and “Federal Reserve notes” (and perhaps even “Federal Reserve Notes”).]

, gold certificates, Special Drawing Right certificates, or lawful money of the United States. Federal Reserve notes so deposited shall not be reissued [Reissued by who? Not the Fed Res bank, but by the “Federal Reserve agent” with whom the notes were deposited. Once deposited with the “Federal Reserve agent,” a note would be taken out of circulation. This implies that any note not deposited with the “Federal Reserve agent” could be “reissued” by a Federal Reserve bank. In other words, if the Federal Reserve bank received a note they might have two choices: 1) reissue the note by giving it as discharge of debt to any private or governmental entity; or 2) “reduce its liability for outstanding Federal Reserve notes by depositing with the Federal Reserve agent its Federal Reserve notes.”

Could the same options apply to private men and women? When someone gives me a legal tender of a FRn as a discharge of his debt to me, do I also have two options? Could I either 1) reissue the note by passing it on to discharge my debt to someone else; or 2) deposit my FRns with a “Federal Reserve agent” and thereby “reduce MY liability for outstanding Federal Reserve notes . . .? . . . And who is the “Federal Reserve agent”? Is the IRS a (the?) “Federal Reserve agent”? Is the local bank, or perhaps even my individual bank account a “Federal Reserve agent”? I do make deposits into the bank. I’m about 95% confident that I’ve seen law that defines the banks as “federal depositories”. The bank accounts are guaranteed to $100,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Are the local banks deemed “Federal Reserve agents”? Is it possible that I, as the fiduciary for an individual bank checking account, am also deemed to be a “Federal Reserve agent”? We know from George Mercier that the bank accounts tie us to governmental liability. Is it possible that the source of that liability is our presumed status as “Federal Reserve agents”? . . . . This is another far-fetched theory, but it might make some sense. “This state” (the territory/fiction) was created as a forum wherein one could conduct his financial affairs without gold or silver coin. “This state” is all about the “money” (actually, currency). So, every time I used FRn’s I am probably presumed to operate “in this state”—perhaps as a beneficiary entitled to “use” the FRn’s to “discharge” my debts. But when I operate a bank checking account, am I presumed to be acting as a fiduciary and/or agent for the “Federal Reserve”? Is it possible that the bank account—denominated in the name “ALFRED ADASK” with a SSN, etc.—is deemed to be the “Federal Reserve agent”? . . . . And what would happen if I disclaimed all of my transactions as “at arm’s length” (meaning that I was acting only in my private, sovereign capacity” and not as a fiduciary or agent for any other entity)? Would the “at arm’s length” disclaimer defeat any presumption that I was functioning as (or for) a “Federal Reserve agent”? . . . . I’ve got to end (or at least refine) this conjecture by finding out what “Federal Reserve agent” really means. ] , except upon compliance with the conditions of an original issue. The liability of a Federal Reserve bank with respect to its outstanding Federal Reserve notes shall be reduced by an amount paid by such bank to the Secretary of the Treasury under section 4 of the Old Series Currency Adjustment Act.

Section 415 – Notes

SOURCE

(Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, Sec. 16 (pars.), 38 Stat. 267; June 21, 1917, ch. 32, Sec. 7, 40 Stat. 237; Jan. 30, 1934, ch. 6, Sec. 2(b)(5), 48 Stat. 339; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, Sec. 203(a), 49 Stat. 704; Pub. L. 87-66, Sec. 8(a), June 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 147; Pub. L. 90-269, Sec. 5, Mar. 18, 1968, 82 Stat. 50; Pub. L. 90-349, Sec. 5(b), June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 189.)

[If I recall correctly, the Trading With the Enemy Act was also passed in A.D. 1917. A.D. 1934 ushered in the New Deal. And A.D. 1968 signaled the end of silver-redeemed currency. I don’t know of any particular significance associated with A.D. 1961. I have a hunch that the previous “sources” could provide a very concise lesson on the monetary history of the U.S.]

REFERENCES IN TEXT

Section 4 of the Old Series Currency Adjustment Act, referred to in text, which was classified to section 913 of former Title 31, was repealed by Pub. L. 97-258, Sec. 5(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1068, the first section of which enacted Title 31, Money and Finance.

CODIFICATION

Section is comprised of fifth and sixth pars. of section 16 of act Dec. 23, 1913. For classification to this title of other pars. of section 16, see Codification note set out under section 411 of this title.

AMENDMENTS

1968 – Pub. L. 90-349 added Special Drawing Right certificates to the types of deposits which Federal Reserve banks may use in reducing their liability for outstanding Federal Reserve notes. Pub. L. 90-269 repealed second par. (sixth par, of section 16 of Act Dec. 23, 1913) which provided that the Federal Reserve agent shall hold the gold certificates and lawful money for exchange for the outstanding Federal Reserve notes and that upon the request of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Board of Governors shall require the agent to transmit to the Treasurer of the United States as many gold certificates held by him as collateral as may be required for the exclusive purpose of the redemption of such Federal Reserve notes.

[Note that the Act of Dec. 23, A.D. 1913 (which presumably created the Federal Reserve), apparently referred to both the “Secretary of the Treasury” and the “Treasurer of the United States”. I am looking at a $5 bill that is signed by both John W. Snow, “Secretary of the Treasury” and by Anna Escobo Cabral, the “Treasurer of the United States”.

By A.D. 1968, there were no “gold certificates” in circulation, but there were still silver certificates and “lawful money” in the form of silver. The A.D. 1968 repeal thus terminated the obligation of the “Federal Reserve agent” to hold his lawful money for “exchange” for FRn’s.

Note that the text describing A.D. 1968 Amendment refers to the “Federal Reserve agent” as “him”. This implies that whoever the “Federal Reserve agent” may be, he is at least one, probably several, and perhaps a multitude of living men or women. Unless the law has been subsequently amended or the text I’m reading is misleading, the “Federal Reserve agent” is not a legal fiction.]

1961 – Pub. L. 87-66 provided for reduction of liability for outstanding notes by payment of notes of series prior to 1928. [And note issued prior to A.D. 1933 would be backed by gold or silver. Thus, the A.D. 1961 Amendment may have been passed for the purpose of culling all or most of the silver and gold certificates out of circulation.]

1934 – Act Jan. 30, 1934, struck out “gold” wherever it appeared before “gold certificates,” and inserted “certificates” after “gold” wherever latter stood alone.

CHANGE OF NAME

Section 203(a) of act Aug. 23, 1935, changed name of Federal Reserve Board to Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. [See comment on section 411, supra.]

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS

For transfer of functions to Secretary of the Treasury, see note set out under section 121 of this title.

[Transfer of functions from who “to Secretary of the Treasury”? This sounds like a transfer of functions from a de jure office of the United States of America to “Secretary of the Treasury” which may be a de facto and/or private administrative entity.

Note that the text describing the transfer reads “to Secretary of the Treasury”—it does not read “to the Secretary of the Treasury” nor does it read “to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States”. Without the definite pronoun “the” we are left to wonder which “Secretary of the Treasury”. Without “Treasury of the United States,” we are left to wonder which “Treasury”.]

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in sections 348, 420, 421, 467 of this title.

* United States Code o TITLE 12 – BANKS AND BANKING

+ CHAPTER 2 – NATIONAL BANKS

# SUBCHAPTER VIII – RESERVE CITIES; LAWFUL RESERVES

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04

12 U.S.C. Section 143. Banks in Alaska [territory?] and insular possessions; lawful money reserves

Every national [14^th Amendment?] banking association located in Alaska or in a dependency or insular possession or any part of the United States outside of the continental United States, and not a member of the Federal reserve system, shall at all times have on hand in lawful money of the United States an amount equal to at least 15 percent of the aggregate amount of its deposits in all respects. Whenever the lawful money of any such association shall fall below 15 percent of its deposits such association shall not increase its liabilities by making any new loans or discounts other than by discounting or purchasing bills of exchange payable at sight nor make any dividends of its profits until the required proportion between the aggregate amount of its deposits and its lawful money of the United States has been restored. And the Comptroller of the Currency shall notify any such association whose lawful money reserve shall be below the amount required to be kept on hand to make good such reserve, and if such association shall fail for thirty days thereafter so to make good its lawful money the Comptroller may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury, appoint a receiver to wind up the business of the association as provided in section 192 of this title.

Section 143 – Notes

SOURCE

(R.S. Sec. 5191.) CODIFICATION

R.S. Sec. 5191 derived from act June 3, 1864, ch. 106, Sec. 31, 13 Stat. 108, which was the National Bank Act, and act Mar. 1, 1872, ch. 22, 17 Stat. 32. See section 38 of this title.

[The dates tell us that Alaska was clearly a territory rather than a “state” when these statutes were enacted.

The reference to a “National Bank Act” in A.D. 1864 was enacted during the Civil War and before the 14^th Amendment. I can’t prove it, but I’ll bet this “national” bank act had to apply to territories rather than States of the Union.

The apparent fact that this law was not changed or repealed when “Alaska” became a “state” in A.D. 1959. This raises the faint possibility that “Alaska” may have never become a true “State of the Union” but simply changed from being an overt “Territory” into a (territorial) “state”. However, given this date of admission, it seems more likely that Alaska was admitted as a State of the Union and then later reduced to a territorial state when the gold & silver disappeared.]

EXCEPTION AS TO TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS

Functions vested by any provision of law in Comptroller of the Currency, referred to in this section, not included in transfer of functions to Secretary of the Treasury, see note set out under section 1 of this title.

* United States Code o TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

+ PART I – CRIMES

# CHAPTER 17 – COINS AND CURRENCY

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04

18 USC Section 336. Issuance of circulating obligations of less than $1

Whoever makes, issues, circulates, or pays out any note, check, memorandum, token, or other obligation for a less sum than $1, intended to circulate as money or to be received or used in lieu of lawful money of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

[Pretty strange. This seems to say that at least no private person can issue any form currency for less than $1. This law seemingly can’t apply to the U.S. Mint that produces pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters. This law seemingly guarantees an exclusive right and even duty to produce “tokens” (clad coins) in the form of loose change” to the U.S. Mint and/or U.S. government.

It also raises a pretty interesting possibility: Suppose I were fined $200 by the local traffic court. Suppose I wrote the court a check or money order for $200.50. The court would owe me 50 cents. But if the court issued, circulated, paid out any note, check, memorandum, token or other obligation for 50 cents (a sum less than $1), the court would seemingly commit the crime of violating 18 USC 336.

Could the court process my $200.50 check/MO and thus close my account without paying me the 50 cents? But wouldn’t they violate the law by writing a check for less than $1?

What is the legal status of my conviction if the gov-co couldn’t process my $200.50 check? ]

Section 336 – Notes

SOURCE

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

[This is odd. I’d expect this law to trace back into the early 1900s. The fact that this law started in A.D. 1948 suggests that its purpose is new and a function of the fiat monetary system. There may be some significance here that I have not yet sensed.]

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Sec. 293 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, Sec. 178, 35 Stat. 1122). Numerous suggestions, of which that of Mr. E. M. Million, of Arlington, Va., is typical, recommend that this section be omitted as obsolete or revised to except commercial obligations. However, since the decisions make it plain that only obligations intended to circulate as money are within the provisions of this section and that commercial checks of less than $1 are not affected, there seems no reason so to rewrite the section. (See U.S. v. Monongahela Bridge Co., Fed. Cas. No. 15,796; Stettinius v. U.S., Fed. Cas. No. 13, 387.) Minor changes were made in phraseology.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in section 492 of this title.

* United States Code

o TITLE 30 – MINERAL LANDS AND MINING

+ CHAPTER 3A – LEASES AND PROSPECTING PERMITS

# SUBCHAPTER I – GENERAL PROVISIONS

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04

30 USC Section 187. Assignment or subletting of leases; relinquishment of rights under leases; conditions in leases for protection of diverse interests in operation of mines, wells, etc.; State laws not impaired

No lease issued under the authority of this chapter shall be assigned or sublet, except with the consent of the Secretary of the Interior. The lessee may, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, be permitted at any time to make written relinquishment [to who? Government or some other private party?] of all rights under such a lease, and upon acceptance thereof be thereby relieved of all future obligations under said lease, and may with like consent surrender any legal subdivision [To who?] of the area included within the lease. Each lease shall contain provisions for the purpose of insuring the exercise of reasonable diligence, skill, and care in the operation of said property; a provision that such rules for the safety and welfare of the miners and for the prevention of undue waste as may be prescribed by said Secretary shall be observed, including a restriction of the workday to not exceeding eight hours in any one day for underground workers except in cases of emergency; provisions prohibiting the employment of any child under the age of sixteen in any mine below the surface; provisions securing the workmen complete freedom of purchase; provision requiring the payment of wages at least twice a month in lawful money of the United States, and providing proper rules and regulations to insure the fair and just weighing or measurement of the coal mined by each miner, and such other provisions as he may deem necessary to insure the sale of the production of such leased lands to the United States and to the public at reasonable prices, for the protection of the interests of the United States, for the prevention of monopoly, and for the safeguarding of the public welfare. None of such provisions shall be in conflict with the laws of the State in which the leased property is situated.

Section 187 – Notes

SOURCE

(Feb. 25, 1920, ch. 85, Sec. 30, 41 Stat. 449; Pub. L. 95-554, Sec. 5, Oct. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 2074.)

AMENDMENTS

1978 – Pub. L. 95-554 substituted “provisions prohibiting the employment of any child under the age of sixteen in any mine below the surface” for “provisions prohibiting the employment of any boy under the age of sixteen or the employment of any girl or woman, without regard to age, in any mine below the surface”.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in sections 187a, 187b, 275, 285 of this title; title 10 sections 7421, 7435.

2 Comments

Filed under Gold & Silver Coin, Money