Karl Theodor von Inama-Sternegg · 1874
Inama-Sternegg’s review assesses Knies’s monetary theory through its contribution to jurisprudence. Moving from capital, property, and transfers of use to the legal functions of money and monetary debts, it argues that economic analysis can clarify legal relations without displacing the authority of legal concepts.
Weit mehr als eine blos mittelbare Bedeutung für die Rechtswissenschaft muss dem vorliegenden Werke vindicirt werden.
English translation: Far more than a merely indirect significance for jurisprudence must be claimed for the present work.
The book’s significance thus exceeds the provision of economic background for lawyers. Inama-Sternegg emphasizes a division of conceptual jurisdiction: economics treats capital as a stock of goods available for future needs, whereas property, claims, and liabilities require legally established definitions. Productive cooperation depends on respecting these differences rather than collapsing economics and law into a single explanatory framework.
Die Nationalökonomie hat natürlich viele wichtige Aufgaben in Betreff des Eigenthums.
English translation: Political economy naturally has many important tasks with respect to property.
This acknowledgment gives economics substantial work to do while denying it an independent power to redefine ownership. The review values an approach that connects legal forms to economic purposes without substituting economic classifications for valid law.
The analysis of contracts makes that relationship concrete. Knies distinguishes goods whose use can be transferred separately from goods whose consumption requires transfer of the goods themselves. In the latter case, notably a loan, ownership must pass to the borrower, although the economic purpose remains the transfer of use.
Darum ist auch bei diesen, besonders beim Darlehen, die Uebertragung des Eigenthums unvermeidlich — und doch nur begleitend.
English translation: For that reason, in these cases too, and especially in the case of the loan, the transfer of ownership is unavoidable — and yet merely incidental.
The distinction also clarifies the allocation of risk. Destruction of the particular objects lent does not extinguish a generically defined obligation. For the creditor, the decisive danger is instead the debtor’s insolvency. Legal ownership and economic exposure therefore cannot simply be identified.
Turning to money, the review reconstructs Knies’s account of its functions in valuation, exchange, payment, preservation, and transport of value. Widespread customary acceptance does not, however, establish its full legal standing. State recognition determines which economically usable monetary object will count as money in legally consequential transactions. Monetary authority consequently extends beyond the production of reliable coinage.
Inama-Sternegg highlights Knies’s resistance to restricting legal money to its payment function. The selection of a monetary substance as a measure of value must also be distinguished from the fixing of a quantitative unit as a price standard. Together, these decisions govern how obligations are expressed, assessed, and discharged.
The distinction between economic payment and legal release is especially consequential. Payment satisfies a claim through a transfer of value; compulsory discharge may merely deprive the creditor of an enforceable remedy. Legislation can recognize an existing object suitable for payment, but cannot create economic value by decree. A valueless object might therefore acquire compulsory discharging force without becoming an adequate means of payment. The review connects this reasoning to Knies’s rejection of paper money as money in the full legal sense: compulsory paper circulation still presupposes metallic money as the measure of value and price standard.
Another important function is the legal preservation of value. Even though purchasing power fluctuates, enduring monetary obligations require the law to treat specified sums as stable quantities. Fines, taxes, salaries, securities, and debts would otherwise lose their administrable continuity. This legal constancy does not preclude exceptional legislative intervention when monetary changes impose excessive disadvantage.
The review follows these principles into foreign-currency debts, compulsory paper circulation, demonetization, and changes of monetary standard. It singles out the conversion between silver and gold: Knies would use the relation prevailing at the transition, rather than that at the debt’s origin or eventual payment. The conversion rule applies the broader effort to reconcile continuity of obligation with changes in monetary institutions.
Inama-Sternegg closes with qualified praise. Knies provides jurisprudence with valuable conceptual distinctions, but leaves the economic-policy and administrative dimensions of money insufficiently developed. The review’s positive assessment therefore carries a demand for further work: the coordination of legal and economic reasoning should yield a fuller account of monetary governance.
This work was divided into 5 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 5 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian