New Orleans Mint not able to pay Certificates
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
The early years of the New Orleans Mint were -- well, a mess. It was common that the Mint Treasurer did not have coins with which to honor Mint Certificates of Deposit. This left depositors with delay, debt and sometimes protested Certificates. (A "protested" Certificate was one where the Bank or other owner called for payment and the maker or endorser could not satisfy the full amount. The endorser became liable for full payment immediately, even if the certificate were issued by the Mint or other agency of high trust.)
Here is one compilation of letters sent as a group to the Treasury Secretary by Superintendent Bradford.
[RG104 E-216 Vol 04]
I assure you, sir, that these two cases serve but as an illustration of the mortification that the
Treasurer and myself have to experience almost every day. When Messrs. Tyler and Maxwell,
the Coiner and the Melter & Refiner, arrived here from Philadelphia, they were introduced to me,
by letter by Dr. Patterson the Director, as officer to whom I might refer for information on all
occasions and in whom I might place the greatest confidence. This induced me, up to a very
recent time, to suppose that the delays in coining were unavoidable. I am now convinced pf the
contrary and perceive that I have been deceived and that my confidence was misplaced. I have
called on Mr. Breedlove and communicated to him frankly the state of affairs in this Branch
Mint and that I had applied for the removal of these officers. He heartily approved of what I have
done and is as well as myself convinces that unless a decided change takes place, public
sentiment will soon be arranged against the Branch Mint and it will prove fatal to this institution.
Very respectfully, Your humble servant,
David Bradford, Superintendent
U.S. Branch Mint,
New Orleans
May 18, 1839
Hon. Levi Woodbury,
Secretary of the Treasury of the U.S.
Sir,
I deem it my duty to call your attention to the following correspondence that has just passed
between Messrs. Ganahl & Co., Merchants in this City, Mr. Breedlove, the Collector [of
Customs] and the Treasurer of this Branch Mint.
(Copy)
New Orleans
May 14, 1839
Edmund Forstall, Esq.
Treasurer, Branch Mint
Dear Sir:
We had this morning presented to us your Certificate in our favor dated 24 January last,
No. 31, for Gold Bullion to the amount of $6,513.33;
No 4, for Silver Bullion to the amount of $ 47.26.
[Total of] $6,560.59
May we ask, why these Certificates, which you promised to cash in a few weeks, from the time
of the deposit was made, have been refused ever since, tho’ repeated applications have been
made for the funds?
Very respectfully,
Ganahl & Co.
U.S. Branch Mint,
Treasurer’s Office
New Orleans
May 16, 1839
Messrs. Ganahl & Co.
Gentlemen,
I have received you of the 14th inst., and very much regret that the Coiner has not put it in my
power to redeem the promise that I was induced by his representations to make of early payment.
Respectfully,
/signed/ Edmund Forstall
Treasurer, Branch Mint
Collector’s Office
New Orleans
May 17, 1839
Edmund Forstall, Esq.
Sir,
Some six or eight months since I deposited in the Commercial Bank several certificates of
deposit of bullion and was this morning much surprised to be called on as endorser for the
amount with a notice that the Bank had called several times and could not get the amount. I
informed the President of the Bank that I could not pay the amount when the Certificate was
[not] protested. This he said he would have done instantly, but at my request has agreed to
postpone entering a protest until tomorrow. I wish, Sir, for the Credit of the Government you
will not let these Certificates be protested, but will immediately provide coin and take them up.
Respectfully, etc.
/signed/ Jas. W. Breedlove, Collector
U.S. Branch Mint,
Treasurer’s Office
New Orleans
May 17, 1839
Jas. Breedlove, Esq.
Sir:
In reply to your favor of this day’s date, I have only to express my deep regret that the Coiner
has not furnished me with the means of paying our Certificates. Complaints on this subject are
increasing every day and Mr. Bradford informs me that he will immediately write to the
Secretary of the Treasury on the subject.
Respectfully,
/signed/ Ed. Forstall
Treasurer, Branch Mint
Comments
The early New Orleans Branch Mint was a tragic comedy. Reading these letters, who would have concluded that within a short few months afterwards, it was not Melter & Refiner Maxwell and Coiner Tyler who were removed from office. It was Treasurer Forstall and Superintendent Bradford who were removed.
Forstall accused Tyler of neglecting to timely make gold coins in order to pay the Certificates. Tyler had one big problem, he had not received gold coin dies from Philadelphia in order to coin any gold. Dies were not received in New Orleans until the end of March 1839. And in directives emanating from higher than the Coiner and Melter&Refiner, the mint was in full swing making dimes and half dimes in an effort to remove small scrip from New Orleans commerce.
The gold in question was not coined until August 1839. Around that time, Forstall and Bradford lost their jobs, and Maxwell and Tyler lost their lives to yellow fever.
QE dies were shipped 3/14/1839 and HE dies on 3/22/1839.
Interesting !!!
Very interesting bit of history. Seems a comedy of errors, however, more managerial than operational. Cheers, RickO
Mint systems for payment were designed around the idea of immediate coinage of deposits. In Philadelphia, several banks routinely sent bullion to the Mint, then absorbed the cost of delay by reselling the coins at a small premium - a little above prevailing interest rates. Girard Bank, Bank of America and Bank of the United States were consistent depositors.
Had it not been for these deposits, Mint expenses due to unproductive time and insufficient bullion would have been several times the actual costs.
The fault lay with Congress in not allowing the Mint to float coins through the bullion fund, and later in President Jackson's foolish economic policies.