The weekly union record., 1864-01-23

OF Inc question pSIuIe SAu ceuaIer aA9 eAAl'
proceed briefly to give the reasons that will
govern ne 10 my vote upoa the bill providing
for the repeal Of the Specific ContTac. Act.
shall vote for the repeal Of that law-fFst'
because deem the lax TO be unconstitutional;
sscond, because its direct tendency is 10 prevent
the free circulation Of the adopted currency Of
the aatiou-a currency that has been produced
through the necessities of s. war prosecuted 10
save the nations life-adopted by other States,
rejected only b7 this; third, because il binds
persons rot parties to the contract made under
its provisions /; fourta, because it places Cali
iornia in a position Inconsistent with her
avowed loyalty; nth, because it presents no
standard Of value by which contracts made by
virtue Of il can be measured Or determined.
OF the first proposition it may be said !;
Leave the constitutionality Of the act with the
courts To this objection l reply: Whilst il
is the province and duty of courts to pass upon
the constituionality Of laws, it is none the less
ouI duty to see 70 it that no unconstitutional
law remains as part Of the statutes of the State.
Did we permit this, We would fall lar short Of
the purpose for which we were sent here. The
objection, then, i1 this view Of the case, is not
sound, aud should not be permitted 10
govern US.
Congress has declared Treasury notes lawful
money, and legal tender in payment of all
debts Is this act of Congress valid No
one. presume, will question its validity, for,
aside from its sanctity as Federal Act, it has
been determined by every court tha; has passed
upon the subject to be avalid and constitutional
law. IT. however, it be urged that the law Of
Congress concerning the issuance of Treasury
notes is unconstitutional, then submit that a
State Legislature is not the proper tribunal to
pass upon the question, and any attempt, in
the absence OF decision Of the Supreme Court
of the United States declaring it unconsttu-
.ional. to abrogate or in any way impair law
of Congress by unfrendy State legislation is
revolutionary in its character, for article OF
the Constitution of the United States provides
that the Constitution ard the laws of the
United Slater which shall be made in pursuance
thereof aud all treaties made, or which shall be
made, undsr the authority OF the United States
shall be the supreme law Of the land and the
judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
anything IN the Constitution or ialcS Of any
State 10 the contrary notwithstanding.
1t being admitted that the law of Congress
is valid, the next question that arises is; Can
the law be avoided or in any way be impaired
by State legislation'
Were it not for the earnestuess manifested
by the friends of the Specific Contract Law,
would content myself by pointing ont the pro
visions of the Constitution just cited, and con
but, under existing circumstances, propose to
treat the question as though it were al opeI
one Under this head of the case, contend
Frst, That, if the State law is valid, contract
to pay in coin would be valid without any law
for it is well-settled principle that the parties
to contract may sometimes waive statutory
right. Second, That, il law of Congress
cannot be rendered nugaiory by the terms Of q
contract, the law of State cannot strengthen
the contract, or make the law of Congress les;
obligatory. Can law of Congress, general
in lis terms and character, comprehending
,a.iN loo n 4
obligatory upon every individual in the country
ba tothly invaidated by the cauningy drawn
terms of contract, especially when that cot
tract provides for the payment in one kind o.
currency, and the law Of Congress especially
ana distinctly declares that another kind Q
money shall be legal tender in payment Of al
debts?
Congress has power to pass General Bank
rupt law. Will it be contended, even in that
case. party to a contract might make con
tract so strong as afterwards to preclude hin
from obtaining the benefits Of General Bank
rupt act? But the question now presented has
been decided by the Judiciary. In a cas-
where a contract was made payable in coin prior
to the passage of the Treasury note law, it wa:
decided that the debt might be paid in any
kind of money of the United States, notwilh
standing in the money market there was 8
great difference in value between coin and
Treasury notes 1t is then impossible to avoid
or nullily the law of Congress by never SO
stringent and carefully drawn contract. Aside
from the puerile insigniicance Of the effort o
two contending parties who attempt to nuilify
and destroy the solemn eaactments Of the rep
resentatiyes of great nation by cunningly
drawn contract, there are grave and serious
public reasons that ought to render any such
provisions in = contract null and void. Il i:
the duty and interest Of the government, and
SO it should be of every loyal citizen, to make
all the currency of the Government equal, and
to allow no discrimination in business tFausac.
tlOns IF a contract to nav In coin cannot he