Store tokens from Jalisco
On 27 May 1874 the presidente municipal of Guadalajara reported to the District Judge that the businessmen José María Montero, Refugio Alvarez Tostado and Miguel Alvarez del Castillo, had issued copper tokens for use in their individual storesAnother store-keeper, Prudencio Avilés, was also mentioned but not charged. The tokens in the subsequent case included
(1) a circular copper coin worth a medio tlaco, with the name “Miguel Alvarez y Compañia) and the date 1873 on one side and a beehive (colmena) and other signs on the reverse:
(2) a circular copper coin with the initials ‘R. A.’ on the face and an illegible number or letter on the reverse:
(3) a semi-circular coin marked ‘R. A’. (for Refugio Alvarez)
(4) a semi-circular coin marked ‘P. D. N.’ This stood for “Paso de Norte”, the name of Montero’s store.
Alvarez del Castillo had made either 1,400 or 1,500 pieces of ¼ real (medio tlaco), which circulated in Guadalajara, other cities in the state and even outside it: Alvarez Tostado did not know how many coins he had issued, though he thought it was only a few.
All were originally sent to prison on remand, but the judge then decided to absolve Alvarez del Castillo and Alvarez Tostado of the crime of issuing copper coins, and Montero of altering the legitimate copper coinage, contrary to public policy. However, he ruled that they should not issue any further coinage and should recall whatever was in circulation and hand it over to the Director of the local mint. The case then went to a Tribunal which decided in August to overturn the lower court and sentenced Alvarez de Castillo to nine months in prison and a $400 fine, and Refugio Alvarez to six months and a fine of $100, while absolving Montero.
Finally, the case was referred to Mexico’s Supreme Court for it to decide
(1) whether the metal tokens that individuals put into circulation (las fichas ó planchuelas metálicas que, marcadas con su sello, expide y pone en circulación un particular) should be considered money;
(2) whether their issue breached Article 72, fracción XXIII of the Constitution;
(3) whether their issue was a case of counterfeiting; and
(4) whether their issue constituted fraud.
Luckily for the accused (and merchants in general), the Supreme Court decided that the Tribunal was wrong. The small “coins” (planchuelas) were not counterfeit money, or even money, but simply credit notes that people could accept if they wanted to (unos simples signos convencionales de crédito, aceptables únicamente para los que quieran admitirlos, y que ninguna está obligado á recibir). So the three had not usurped the functions of Congress or the Ejecutive, and so had not issued counterfeit moneyEl Foro, Tomo IV. Núm. 54, 24 March 1875: Tomo IV. Núm. 55, 25 March 1875; Tomo IV. Núm. 56, 30 March 1875; Tomo IV. Núm. 59, 2 April 1875