The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-03-11
HE TRUE LEGAL TENDER.

tutional guarantees, Like riches wnen fortunes
tide is turned, to make unto themselves wings
and fly away in the hour when most bitterly
needed, has not been more signally illustrated
in the practical suppression of habe1s corpus,
than in the Legislative and actual establishment
of irredeemable paper as legal tender. No
competent and candid expounder of the
United States Constitution would deny that 1t
was the clear intention of the trainers of that
instrument that only the tender of specie
should operate the compulsory extinguish-
ment of debt The intrinsic evidence con-
Quoting to this conclusion is powerfully re-
inforced by circumstantial probabilities. The
miserable explosion of John Laws paper bub-
bic was then fresh in the memory and in the
reflection of all well informed and thoughtful
men; and the patriots and statesmen of that
day could not but revert to the collapse into
worthless rags Of the old continental money,
as not only public disaster but national
scandal 1t was in this condition of mind on
the subject of currency that they addressed
themselves to the work of prescribing the
powers and limitations of the government of
the new Union; and, hence, there is not a
line OF a word in the Constitution framed by
| them which invests Congress, or any other
| branch of the government with authority to
force upon the people legal tender manu-
featured out of paper, or to establish mon
etary standard possessing no intrinsic value
and Of infinite mutability of measure. Not
content with thus unqalifedly withholding
such right from the federal government,
they took care to expressly forbid the exer-
else of it by any Of the States.
Nevertheless, no sooner did the occasion of
the late war furnish a pretext, based on a
seemingly overruling national expediency for
supplying the pecuniary wants of the govern
ment with the products of a paper money
mill, than greenbacks were put forth as legal
tender, and urged upon creditors with such
emphasis that individuals and courts alike
almost universally acquiesoed in the proceed
| ing either on the plea of necessity or Of
patriotic duty. From that hour up to the
present the United States Supreme Court has
systematically evaded the consideration and
decision of the question of the constitution
atty of greenbacks. But there are now some
indications that the time is at hand for a
defnitive Judicial disposition of the question.
Greenbacks have lost their odor of national
sanctity. The dominant party no longer
| deyotes itself to saving the life of the
nation" with that or any other species of
unconstitutional expedient, but it thinks only
Of saving its own life, and is ready to do so,
if need be, by laying destructive hands on
greenbacks, or whatsoever other obligations
"a L =. ~. r. Al
nation. That in these circumstances the
Supreme Court should at length give symp-
toms of a willingness to pass upon the ques-
ton of the constitutionality Of the legal
tender act, is very suggestive of the tendency
of such bodies to take their bent and COM
plexion from the prevalent sentiment and the
strongest force of the hour. Among the
recent intimations that the Supreme Court
was thus disposed is the statement of a cor
respondent of the New York Commercial
Advertiser, that it is thought that this court
will decide that "greenbacks are unconstitu-
tional," and that the secretary of the treasury
will settle all claims as they may arise by
paying them in coin. ''This," he says,
twill settle the whole matter in a manner
i Sdtic4hClOiy W lnO pcOpiO. 1uo INOW 1OAh
Times demurs in advance to such decision,
saying: What will become of debts, pub
lie and private, that have been already paid
in greenbacks? If such payment was uncon-
stitutional. they must be paid over again in
| gold. Such q decision would create wider
distress and greater confusion throughout the
country, ten times over, than decision that
1 -
1t does not follow that debts formerly paid
in greenbacks would have to be paid over in
gold. Creditors who had accepted payment
| in such money would be bound by the accept
ance They would have to abide by the ac-
acknowledgement which they had given of the
debt, even though they should have accepted
payment in chips and shavings 1t is their
default if they have received as money in sat
isfaction of their dues that which was not
legal tender under the Constitution. In the
event. then, of such decision, we can see no
reason for anticipating "wider distress and
greater confusion" as apprehended by the
New York Times. But there would be ground
to apprehend trouble from the large increase
in the amount of outstanding liabilities, in
case the decision should be construed to re-
quire gold payment on the face of debts con-
tracted on paper money basis. 1t is scarcely
conceivable, however, that such a construc-
ton, SO at variance with the fact and the
equity of the case, would be maintained.
Nor does it follow that because greenbacks
would no longer be legal tender, they would
suffer ruinous depreciation in the hands Of
their holders As a part Of the national
debt, they would stand on the same footing
as the principal, without interest, Of the FIVE
twenty and other bonds of the government !;
with this advantage. in their favor that they
are payable on demand at the treasury,
whereas those bonds do not mature before
the lapse of fifteen or twenty years. The de-
cision of the constitutional ineompetency of
Congress to create legal tender of paper
would, Of course, devolve upon the treasury