What was the law that forbid the coinage of Cents and nickels at branch mints, and when it passed?

BillJones

I have read that the branch mints were forbidden to strike cents and other non silver and gold coins. I have been able to find that that law was reversed in 1905 which made coinage of the 1908-S Cent possible. In 1912, branch mint mintage began for the nickel. When was the law that forbid the product of minor coins passed, and when and how was it reversed?

I would like to write an essay about this, but my searches on the Internet have only resulted in "teases," and my reference books have not yielded any answers.

RogerB

It was not a single specific piece of legislation. When each mint was authorized, the legislation specified the kind of coins that were to be made there. Treasury, backed by the Attorney General, refused to permit any other coins to be produced even if the Mint said there was a need. Just after the Civil War, the Mint Director wanted to reopen the New Orleans Mint to strike 5-cent copper-nickel pieces. Considerable planning was done, but the Attorney General ruled that because the New Orleans Mint was authorized to strike gold and silver only, it could not produce minor coins. A similar situation developed earlier at San Francisco in 1864 and was quashed for the same reason. This also applied to suggestions to make silver coins at Charlotte.

The 1905 legislative change allowed the Secretary of Treasury to decide the metal and place of coinage based on economic conditions.

Hope this helps.
[See E-217 box 1, 2, letters for 1864 and May-June, 1867]

mvs7

Following on what @RogerB said, these are snippets of the enabling legislation from (1) the Act of March 3, 1835, establishing the first branch mints, and (2) the Act of July 3, 1852, establishing the branch mint "in California." Note the restrictions on what they can coin...

(from www.loc.gov - 23rd Congressional Record)

(from www.loc.gov - 32nd Congressional Record)

I was going to keep going, but the wife is calling me for dinner... . Just Google to find the date each mint was established, then check the Congressional Record for that day and you should find Carson City and Denver blurbs in due time.

Raybo

"In a letter from mint director James Pollock to secretary of the treasury Samual Chase on December 8, 1863, Pollock states that the rising costs of nickel for the cent coin required a change in the composition of the cent. The supply was almost entirely dependent on foreign sources for which the mint was paying in gold or its equivalent. Pollock also disliked nickel because it was difficult to melt and was harsh, brittle and very destructive on the working dies and machinery, he recommended the use of bronze which was being used in France and England.
Pollock went on to say that demand for the cent is far beyond the mint's ability to supply it, and without changing the composition of the cent, the cost of production may compel a cessation of that coinage. Pollock also recommended a two cent coin made of bronze, which he believed would be a great public convenience. Pollock believed by using bronze for the cent and two cent coinage, the mint could greatly increase their profits."

ricko

I have often wondered if there were not some coins struck in silver at the 'gold only' mints, perhaps for experimentation or as 'late night' project. It is certainly possible, though I have never heard of any examples being found. What a surprise that would be.... Cheers, RickO

BillJones

Silver was a by-product of the gold ore refining process at the Charlotte and Dahlonega Mints. When the two southern mints had recovered a sufficient quantity of silver, they shipped it to the Philadelphia Mint for coinage.

At one point the southern politicians asked for the authority to strike silver coins at the Charlotte Mint, but the proposal didn’t go anywhere. At any rate, the southern mints could not have made any silver coins larger than a quarter. In fact, their capacity might have been limited to coins no bigger than a dime because their coin presses couldn’t strike anything larger than a five dollar gold piece. The reason given for that limit was that there were concerns that ten dollar gold pieces might be exported.

I doubt that there were any trial strikes in silver. That would have involved quite a process. The ingots would have needed to be rolled out to the proper thickness and then had planchets punched out from the sheets of silver. Then the planchets would have needed to have been heated before they could be struck into coins.

Finally if the silver coins were to be quarter eagle size, there were further difficulties. I have read that the Dahlonega Mint had a lot of problems with calibrating the presses properly for quarter eagles. The Dahlonega Mint workers had a lot of problems with breaking the quarter eagle dies. Using them on silver, which is harder than gold, would have made that problem worse. Imaging explaining to the head office that you needed a new set of dies because you had broken you first pair trying to strike illegal silver coins.

After the Charlotte Mint fire in 1844, the “C Mint” had only one coin press. That was another reason why they probably would not have messed around with any clandestine silver coins.

topstuf

Mint regulations can nickel and dime one to death.

RogerB

Ahhh..... a "cent-less" observation.

RogerB

A considerable proportion of odd events and practices at U.S. Mints were the product of regulations from the Secretary of Treasure or Mint Director. Quite a few had no support in law, but became established practices and thus supported by long-time usage.

The outcome of attempted confiscation of pattern and experimental pieces by directors Kimball and Andrew was absolute declaration by the Attorney General's office and the New York States Attorney that mint officers had no authority to confiscate the pieces or interfere with their sale.