| 文章內容 |
- From mariobyrge@comcast.net Fri Dec 05 19:46:25 2003
Return-Path: <mariobyrge@comcast.net>
X-Sender: mariobyrge@comcast.net
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 36231 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2003 03:45:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2003 03:45:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n34.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.102)
by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2003 03:45:26 -0000
Received: from [66.218.67.155] by n34.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Dec 2003 03:44:21 -0000
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 03:44:21 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Subject: MASS SILVER "CUT-PIECES" LEGAL JURISDICTION
Message-ID: <bqrjal+hig1@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 4972
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 66.218.66.102
From: "Mario Byrge" <mariobyrge@comcast.net>
X-Originating-IP: 68.43.146.39
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=160753362
X-Yahoo-Profile: jsuis2003
TODAY, IT HAS BEEN VERY INTERESTING on the chat discussions
concernning the useage of the Massachusetts silver cut pieces
commonly refered to as "Fractional" pieces of various weights to
justify denomination. Several collectors here posted messages about
the auction from Jeff Hoare Auctions out of Toronto Canada. The
auction announcement stated that these were not to be exported,..now,
it looks as though some got over the border to the United States.
What is jurisdiction, Canada Law versus United States Federal Law
governing the importation and or exportation of numismatic items.
I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who is a Canadian
barrister (Lawyer) for the Canadian goverment,.......he tells me that
in a case like this, there are several issues at hand.
FIRST he states the manufacturer location of the coins themselves.
SECOND what is the metal inwhich the coins were struck THIRD under
what authority governs the act inwhich the coin were struck, ie:
also, purpose of coinage and location under law inwhich coins were
legal ciculating as legal tender. NOW, all this said, he and I
discussed this issue indepth,.........resulting in a few key
instances on who has the authority to hold exportation in this manner.
THE GOVERNING LAW by the Federal bodies of both the Canadian
goverment and the United States goverment stipulates a "Treaty" of
revenue inwhich lawful monies are exchanged and were law permitts,
thus this issue that Jeffery Hoare Auction states that it is the
Canadian goverment that prohibits the exportation of these
Massachusetts coins. The auction house can make certain stipulations
for the lots they auction, this is called private policy and can be
over ruled if necessary under certain conditions, thus being; The
Massachusetts coinage was struck in America, not yet called the
United States,.....however, these coins are infact actual property of
the United States Goverment, ie: place of manufacture and the alloy
inwhich they were struck on, thus being silver!. Under the United
States Federal Law, a coin inwhich holds a certain intrinisic value
such as silver by weight for the denominations, if produced, mined,
smelted or manufactured in the country of original, thus the country
has legal jurisdiction on an ownership matter. Since the
Massachusetts silver was struck in the America and easily proven as
so, then Federal jurisdiction can over turn any local, public or
private auction firms policy. During the 1650's to the 1690's when
Massachusetts Silver coinage was coined, Canada and America "DID NOT"
have a treaty governing the rights on where these coins were deemed
legal tender status,.............. Today, we know that these coins
are directly affilated with the American territories, thus now, the
United States. Also, since they were struck for commerce in this
country, Canada would trade in their commerce these coins,.......but
France, who held Canada under treaty,.........refutted the useage as
a controling medium in that country during the
1600's,..........because of weights of the Massachusetts coinage,
allowing French coinage to circulate at a higher value at the time.
Since the Massachusetts silver was struck in this country and was
only a "carrier" status on the Feversham, no boundries were set off
the coast of Canada thus still declared "International Waters" thus
giving no authority to seize or hold any cargo on that vessel or
anyother vessel that fell in ill fate of the Canadian
coastline,..simply there was no doctrine to sieze or control any
vessel within the coast of Canada.RIGHFULLY, the silver coinage that
was struck in the Bay Colony cannot be governed in waters off the
coast because there was no doctrine or treaty with Canada at this
time,......only the French held Treaty with Canada at this
time,....so in essence, If this matter was ever brought to a Court,
either in Canada or now in the United States, the United States
goverment holds legal jurisdiction on this matter because of
the "Silver" the alloy inwhich these coins were produced on, was
processed here in America, not Canada. As for the legality of the
Massachusetts silver as rightful currency of legal tender status, the
United States will not recognize these because there was no Federal
Authorization on this coinage,.......but for the intrinsic value,
yes, the silver is the United states property. So inactuality, a
court battle at the Federal level would be costly, but could today,
set a presidence over United States coinage in other
countries,...........a recent court proceeding was the 1933 Double
Eagle,....................however, it was confiscated here in United
States,...............but it also could have been confiscated by
Secret Service in England as well if the Tresury Department would
have known that it was in England,............we have alway had
extradiction with England since colonial times,.........
Mario
|
|---|
