The Sun.
London, England, 1868-09-14 00:00:00

and private debts, in conformity with which he paid
the full sum of twenty thousand dollars. If the
Court decides against the Legal-Tender Act the
ground of the purchaser is cut from under him, as
the judgment will assert that the Act is not in ac-
cordance with the Constitution, and therefore is no
law. The Natzon says :—" The cases likely to come
before the Supreme Court under the Legal-Tender
Act may be placed in four different groups : Ist.
Claims for payment in coin of engagements entered
into prior to the passage of the Legal-Tender Act,
in cases where the original contract simply calls for
the payment of dollars. 2d. Claims for payment in
coin of engagements entered into subsequent to the
passage of the Act, where the contract specifi-
cally states or clearly implies that payment is
to be made in coin. 3d. Claims for pay-
ment in coin of engagements entered into
either prior or subsequent to the passage of the
Act, in cues between foreigners and American
citizens, where the contract was made abroad, and
does not specify the nature of the currency; 4th,
claims for payment in coin of engagements entered
into subsequent to the passage of the Act, in cases
where the contract does not specify the nature of
the currency. It will be seen that almost every
case likely to arise can be placed id one or other of
these groups, and that at least four decisions on
four different cases will be necessary to enable the
general public to understand how its interests are to
be affected by the opinion of the Supreme Court on
the constitutionality of the Legal-Tender Act." It
considers that the Court will decide in all the cases
belonging to the three first groups, that payment is
due, and must be made in United States gold coin ;
but that the decision in the fourth case will be
against the claimants, on the ground that at the
time of the contract greenbacks were notoriously
the—undisputed. uni v.ersal and. accept- currency,
which 'signified money unless gold was specified.
The majority of wrongs perpetrated under the
Legal-Tender Act cannot be repaired, nor, in the
Nation's opinion, can they be repeated, for the
history of-the world has shown that while wholesale
injustice to creuitors is possible, against debtors it
is impossible, and when attetnp ed, results in revolu-
tion and social anarchy. Its opinion, then is, that
the anticipated judgment will not practically in-
volve the compulsory payment in coin of all Legal-
Tender engagements now outstanding. Further,
that as the Legal-Tender Act did not suspend Sr ecie
payment, which was accomplished before it was
dreamed of, but only rendered resumption more
difficult, its abolition cannot restore specie payments,
merely rendering resumption no longer impossible.
It is very evident that no decision of the Supreme
Court can replace the coin which has been exported
from the United States owing to the false policy of
its financiers, who by cheapening gold hastened
its export. But the decision will * reverse this
policy, and by bringing gold again into circulation
add to its valu', and in checking its export check
at the same time the undue import of luxuries into
the United States. It will then be the first step in
the right direction, and although it Will requite
years to r, pair the waste of war and the effects of
ignorant financial legislation, so elastic are the re-
sources of the United States that only time and
common sense in the Government are necessary for
the nation to pull up every foot of leeway.