The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-12-16

Constitutionaiity Of tho Legal Tender Act.
There is some anxiety in the public mind to
know what the decision of the Supreme Court
Of the United States may be on the constitu-
tionality Of the Legal Tender act in the cases
now pending before the court on that ques-
ton. 1t is, undoubtedly, an important ques-
ton, involving not only the powers of the gov
eminent, but the obligations and transactions
of trade and the value of property, both past
and present. Still, we think there is no need for
apprehension or disturbance Of business for
whatever the technical Interpretation Of the
tive and higher law that must govern in the
matter, and that is the law of necessity-the
law Of public welfare. It was this law that
led to the issue of the legal tender currency to
preserve the government and the life of the
republic in great crisis, and it will now save
the country from the shock of annulling the
act Of Congress and declaring the greenbacks
worthless. OF course we do not know what
the decision of the Supreme Court may be; but
If even adverse to the constitutionality of the
act it would be comparatively imperative, for
the great and general interests Of the country
would prove superior to the dictum of the
court But we suppose the court will be gov
erned by higher considerations than those Of
doubtful constitutional or legal technicalities,
and that under the abnormal and extraordi-
operation of the legal tenders it win look to
the public welfare.
On several occasions in the history Of the
country, under the pressure Of great financial
difficulties, specie payments have been sus-
pended, and it is well known that the laws
were powerless to compel the banks to pay
coin. The same has occurred In almost all
other countries. The law Of necessity is
stronger than oil other laws. 1t will prove so
in this case. Mr.. Evarts, in his able argu-
ment before the court, maintains that while
the several States are prohibited by the consti-
tuition from emitting bills of credit this is not
forbidden to the federal government, and that
by implication it has the power to emit bills
Of credit and to declare the value thereof
'Let the end be Legitimate" he says '1et it
all the means which are appropriate, which
are plainly adapted to the end, which are not
prohibited, but consistent with the letter and
spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.
Under that the Bank of the United States was
sustained in time Of peace. Under that the
embargo was sustained in time of war;" Then
he lays down as q proposition that ''to
determine what shall be the money of
country and how 1t shall. serve its pur-
poses as q measure of value and
medium of exchange, including its efficacy
as legal tender in satisfaction of debts,
belongs to government So, too, to deter
mine whether anything besides money shall be
q legal tender in satisfaction Of debts among
its subjects or citizens belongs to govern
ment" Then Mr.. Evarts argues that the law
can no longer be questioned under the four
tcenth amendment of the constitution; for that
has ratified every act of Congress relative to
the public debt, and the legal tenders are
part of that debt. That amendment declares,
in effect, that the laws passed during the stress
Of war in aid and support Of the public credit
shall not be questioned.
The Supreme Court may reserve its decision
if it finds constitutional difficulty, or it may
render one not directly bearing upon the broad
issue, to save the country from financial trouble;
but IL will be better If the question can be
settled at once and forever that the Legal
Tender act is valid and cannot be disturbed.
Public opinion is strongly In favor Of such a
settlement Of the question. Even the onto
specie-paymcnt theorists are alarmed al the