The Republican journal., 1870-02-17
THE LEGAL TENDER DECISION.

THE LEGAL TENDER DECISION.
For period of about two years, says the
Hartford Times, the Supreme Court hcsitated
and delayed to make decision on the ques-
ton of the constitutionality of the legal-ten-
der act The Judges seemed to shrink from
the firm and resolute discharge of their duty.
The Court has manifested timid reluctance
to meet and dispose of this important ques-
ton, which was not in keeping with the ex-
allied character of that eminent tribunal.
Everybody knew that when the decision was
made it could not be in favor of the consttu-
tonality of such legislation. The long con-
tinued effort of those in power at Washing
ton, to change the high character of the
Court, by the new appointments of the last
nine years, and degrade it from its high es-
tate as the impartial Judicial and coordinate
branch Of the Government, have not availed,
and cannot well, in the nature of things.
avail to prostitute that honorable tribunal in
to anything like a partisan machine for reg
istering the edicts Of Congress. If Congress
could succeed in Stacking the Court-as
more than one bill introduced under Radical
rule has attempted to dot would be better
at once to abolish the Court entirely, and by
that simple means do away with such a
troublesome branch Of the Government,
whose very existence is interpreted to be a
standing rebuke and admonition to the leg
islators who are usurping power, and disre-
garding the organic law. The Supreme
Court is to Congress a troublesome reminder
that constitutional barriers and safeguards
still exist-that they were erected by the far
seeing trainers of the Government, in order
to prevent just what Congress is now aiming
to bring about-a Central Oligarchy, built
upon the ruins of constitutional govern
ment
The decision itself, Notwithstanding its I'M
worthy shrinking, reluctance, and beating
about the bush, without boldly meeting the
main point, is nevertheless important as de-
claring in effect if not in plain terms, that
the legal tender act is unconstitutional
1t is an unconstitutional act, says Judge
Chase and his associates, so far as it applies
to processing debts,'' contracted previous
to the passage of the act in February, 1862.
The creditors may demand that all such OBJ
legations shall be discharged in gold or sill
yer.
That is virtually decision of the whole
case-though it is to be regretted that the
constitutional timidity oft Chief-Justice and
his followers should have interfered to pre-
vent bold, square, and honest statement of
it. 1t is argued that an act of Congress,
which the Court declares in so many words
was Inconsistent with the spirit Of the Con-
stitution,'' was in some sort justiliablc by the
eXigencies of the war
What this statement involves, It is perhaps
unnecessary to point out, in this place. 1t is
enough that the Judges point to the explicit
language Of the Constitution itself to sustain
their position. The Court declares that Con-
gress has been assuming" powers not del
egated to that body. These assumptions in
time Of war are condoned by the explanation
Of 'patriotic motives"
The yet more fragrant and fatal assump-
tons which Congress continues to make, now
when war no longer exists, will require
some other aud more Ingenious explanation.
But it is unhappily not likelyt to appear until
our Republican government has been wholly
subyeucd.
The opinion was concurred in by Justices
Nelson, Clifford and Field. Justice Miller
delivered a minority opinion, concurred in
by Swaine and Davis, holding the law en-
tirely constitutional constituting it principal
ly as an incident to the war power"