El Ayuntamiento de Tampico

In May 1883 a newspaper reported that the presidente of the Ayuntamiento had allowed businesses that possessed a capital of more than $1, 000 to issue fractional paper moneyEl Faro, Tampico, [ ] May 1883; La Patria, 17 May 1883. The denominations are uncertain because the report actually states (del valor de 3 un octavo centavos).

It seems that the Ayuntamiento de Tampico also issued a series of vales, payable al portador.

The Mexican government passed its Código de Comercio on 15 April 1884. Chapter XII referred to “Los Bancos”. Articles 954 to 955 stated that in future federal authorisation would be needed to establish any bank (bancos de emisión, circulación, descuento, depósitos, hipotecarios, agrícolas, de minería o con cualquier otro objeto de comercio). Articles 957 and 958 laid down that they would have to be limited companies (sociedades anónimas) with at least five founder members, and a minimum share capital of $500,000, with at least half fully paid up. Only banks conforming to the law could issue notes payable to the bearer on sight: note issue could not exceed paid-in capital: fixed cash reserves were required, and all banknotes other than those of the Banco Nacional de México were taxed at 5% of their value. A final article stated that existing banks could not continue operating unless they subjected themselves to the Act within six months.

On 28 February 188[4 or 5] the Ayuntamiento’s issue was denounced by the promotor fiscal of the Juzgado de Distrito del Sur y Centro de Tamaulipas. In accordance with fracción III of artículo 3 of the Constitution, he investigated the matter, and ordered that the vales be withdrawn and the printing plates destroyedMemoria de la Secretaría de Hacienda correspondiente al ejercicio fiscal de 1884 á 1885, Mexico City, 1885. This account is at odds with a later newspaper report that the promotor fiscal del Juzgado in Tampico had accused the Ayuntamiento of issuing paper money, and that the district judge had opened an investigation of the case and ordered it to be dismissed for lack of merit to continue it. This resolution was confirmed by the superior court (El Diario del Hogar, 12 May 1886). Presumably these are referring to the same instance.