The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-03-23
THE FUTURE POSITION OF GREENBAcKs.

} ago, has decided adversely to the constitu
, tionality of the legal tender act, and that tbs
announcement of the decision is delayed II
: order that the public mind may be gradually
prepared for receiving the information with
out shock. As many persons have sppre
hended that grave Disturbances of bust
ness would flow from the destruction OIL
the legal tender character of the greenback
currency, the CRESCENT has more than once
endeayored to allay this apprehension
by showing that the question Of
the constitutionality or unconstitutionality
of the circulating treasury notes
had nothing to do with the market
value of these notes, considered either as an
integrant of the national debt or as current
money. The only way in which Judicial de-
claration of their unconstitutionality could
affect the pecuniary relations of the people
would be by establishing, presumptively, the
obligation of debtors to satisfy the face Of
their debts although those debts should have
been contracted in deprecated paper cur
rency. We denied the equitable validity of
such presumption, holding that the court,
having recognized, with reference to contracts
prior to the legal tender act, the understand
ing between debtor and creditor as law for
themselves, would maintain the same princi-
pie with reference to contracts subsequent to
that act In the first it was understood
that the debt should be discharged in gold;
in the second case it was understood
that the debt should be discharged
In paper. The same reason which induced
the court to prohibit such a retroaction of the
legal tender act as would force the creditor to
accept payment of gold debt in deprecated
paper, would weigh just as strongly in favor
of prohibiting such q retroaction of a decision
as would compel the debtor to pay at its face
In gold debt contracted in deprecated pa
per. In illustrating this idea, we said, among
other things, that ''the same equity that for
bids the retroactive operation of the legal
tender act would forbid the like operation of
decision pronouncing the act unconstitu-
tional." But this remark, we are told by our
usually astute contemporary, the Bee, which
speaks in this instance, however, with more
impetuosity than discrimination, sun
doubtedly contains a fallacy;" and this
y, ~ oNdos NC oadA C4ucGNOI W SHOW.
Well, we look with all our eyes through the
succeeding argument without obtaining a
ghmspe of the promised exposure. On the
contrary, we find tacit admission by our
contemporary that it has been converted to
our position that the judicial notification of
the legal tender act could not, upon princi-
pies of equity, retroact so as to nullify the in
tention of contracting parties with respect to
price and payment To be sure, our contem-
porary does say /:
Parties contracting are bound TO know whether
an act of Congress be constitutional or otherwise
If they do not they contract blindly that ia ALI.
and they run the risk of having the courts 80 de-
eide. Courts declare laws to be constitutional or
otherwise, without any regard to the effect such
declaration may have upon individuals or upon
the Legislature. That is exactly the reason for
which the power OF deciding constitutional ques-
lions is given to courts. So that whether the ef-
feet OF declaring the legal tender acts is Injurious
or otherwise to individuals to the State is not
taken, or rather ought not be taken, into consid.
GRAFTON by the courts. IL is a simple question.
Its equitable bearing is not for the court to con-
slider. Does the statute violate the organic law |
OF the land? IL does, the court must declare.
If il does not. the court must SO declare without
regard to consequences.
But all this, we respectfully submit, is wide |
question which was under consideration. |
That question was simply whether decision |
adverse to the constitutionality of the legal |
tender act would be of any practical conse-
quence; and especially whether it would seri-
ously disturb business by enforcing full pay
ment in gold where payment in deprecated pa
per had been contemplated by both debtor and
creditor; which is the only way in which such
decision could change pccuniary relations.
We have held that equity would preclude
Judicial retroaction of this nature, Just as
equity precludes, in the opinion of the Su-
preme Court, the legal retroaction in SINH
lar sense of the legal tender act And our
contemporary very clearly indorses this
and very happily explains the
principle which it involves, in the following
words:
The principle by which suit would be decided
involving contract which does not specially
stipulate for coin, entered into since the enact
nent OF the legal tender acts, is that the parties
10 the contract contemplated its execution in
" greenbacks," and as they intended and agreed,
and made that the law for themselves so the court
would enforce the execution OF the contract.
Should gold and silver again become the cur.
rency in ordinary use the standard BY which |
settlement Of a greeDback contract would be |
made would be according TO the same rule which
he courts of several of the States have adopted
n enforcing contracts exigble in Confederate
currency. They give that currency a value.
They ascertain by testimony what il was worth |
Il the date OF the contract as compared with legal
ender. This is equitable and the only equitable
way to settle suce contracts. similar rule will
doubtless hereafter be adopted in enforcing con.
racts during the greenback regime, where the I
PARTIES do not specifically stipulate for payment
Q coin. Where coin is stipulated, the Supreme ,
,ourt says coin must be paid.
According to this rule we can 60 on using
reenbacks. Our neighbor correctly SAYS the
,exorable laws of trade settle their value.
The country has for long while suffered
nder sort Of nightmare in relation to green a
acks. Some mysterious value. was supposed g
D be impaired to them by the legal tender
revision; and to nuIfy this provision, it was :
imagined, would somehow fatally deteriorate :
hem and produce infinite confusion in bust .
ess. The CRESCENT was the first paper to .
- |