The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1869-12-13
r,,r s;iupRrMY CoUHr TlNKERxRs.

supreme court says =
18th. only trouble with this bill is that II =
"a mt far-reaching enough. 1t is all nght
az far a. il goes, but it should extend to one {
otbar threatened interference. From time !
IN time rumors come TO us that the supreme
Cour, Court is likely to declare the Legal
Tender &C, null and VOID. 1t has no lawful
authority for so doing, and perhaps no dis'
nosit;ou. but the bare possibility is enough
70 friph,en that most timid Of hares, Capital
Let congress by direct enactment put q
quie.us TO this fear" III
This is a fair sample of the mind ana
brain which are now and have beeu Tor sew I
srsl YEAR, shaping and controlling the des'
tines of this government. II sueh PAf"'
or.rb we're to appear in Republican Jour
nal of no circulation or influence, IL wouio
nrobsby only excite pity for its authors
ignorance, and would receive no other no
,;ca But the Chicago Journal is an inna'
srt;sl western Republican paper, its eaitor
nretsnds to understand our system OF govern
man, and TO be able to instruct his readers
a, to it's powers and to assist in 'ss wise 40
n;pi.,rs,iop. Thousands of we'll meaning
people 40 doubt, devise their opinions from
ius, such publications Is the above anu
dozens Of men 90 to Congress imoued Win
ius. such principles, or we should rather say
cropping in just such ignorance. The Dill
lust reported to the Senate, although an on
shoo. of just such teaching can not be COM
nared in its disregard of the rights OF the
psoDle to the proposed latitude to be given
i, BY the Journal A reference to the bill
now before the Senate, to be found else
where in this paper, will show ths'
while i, Is a palpsbe absurdity on it's face'"
claim, only to restrict the supreme court
from prououncing decisions on pol's'ca'
onestons. This is the declared purpose OF
the bill. The addition which the Journal
would make to it, it evidently considers Oh
the same character. We suppose it called
on 10 defend It's recommendation, it would
argue that the issue of paper as money was
one OF the political measures Of the country,
and should no. be questioned except oy those
Who nerformed the act. Its object, We sup
pose is not merely 10 prevent the supreme
Conr, from deciding the constitusionaliJ
the legal tender act, but to prevent an al
verse decision on that question. If the 81
prems Bench could be cleared OF iss LAWYER
and a Radical President and Senate couI'
he allowed to ell the Bench with Ben. But
lara Ed. Stsntons, and Joe Holts, VIII
would not hesitate to agree 10 advance
record in that tribunal, the DEGREES of q rev
dictionary Congress, then we suppose nei'l
err the judiciary committee nor MIR. lruu
bell nor the Chicago Journal would have To
slightest difficulty in arriving at the concl'
sion that it WAS beth the right and duty
the .ugus. Supreme Court to decide on
questions which could by any possibility
brought before them. The object in
this pending and proposed Legislation IS
emit the Supreme Court from declsr'i
the enactmen's Of Congress to be contra
TO law and void. If the declared object
the pending bill should be strictly adheF
to, and purely political questions only
shut off from the Supreme Court, the m
chief resulting would be inconsiderabls
comparison with the prevention OF a dscis
ON the constitutionalisy Of thelegsl tender
other similar acts, for in this question
involved valuable rights of property wi
cannot be taken away except by sort
robbery. The rights accrued before
pretended legal tender legislation wa
duged in; debtors aud creditors had
tracted on the basis Of gold and silver
Congress had no more right to inject
those contracts piece Of paper 'nstes
gold coin, than it now has to enact
the Courts shall not declare the law.
The Journal very strangely says that
Supreme Court has no lawful authori
declare the legal tender act null and
and yet urges Congress to pass la'
claving that it has no such authority
isA robust example Of that line of argn
which may be paradoxically but truly
to 90 in a circle A legislative body IL
an enactment, the Courts, which int
laws, are about to declare it void for
of authority to pass it, and the same
lstive body is called on to pass anoshe
declaring that the Court has no author
pass on its former act, just as ii the
Court couldn't and wouldn't declare the
ond act not only void, but nonsense.
il Radical losic--this is Radical law
ia Radicalism, and Radicalism is dispel
government to the people of the Y
States.
The Journal philosophy, in its re
curtail the Supreme Court of its apps
Jurisdiction, does not seem to take int
count the fact that the dismissal OF II
peals pending there from State Court
the legal tender act, land we think me
them are from State tribunals), will
aarily accomplish in the States from
such appeals come, the very object VT
sought to be prevented. 1t is probat
known to the Journal writer that an
can only be taken from the decision
State Court TO the Supreme Court, VII
case involves the construction OF
clause of the federal constitution or
of Congress, and the decision is Gd,
the ralidity Of the same Thus if c
shall siuker with the Supreme Court