The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1870-04-28
The aegssI Gender question.

stitutional, so far as it applied to debts
contracted previous to the passage Of the
law. The Court was divided in opinion,
standing four to three, there being two
vacancies on the bench. Many were dis
satisfied with the decision, and. there
being other cases on the docket, it was
thought desirable to have a decision
from tire fall Court. Justices Strong and
Bradley filing the previous vacancies
Attorney general Hoar asked rehearlng,
but the parties asking to withdraw their
case, the Court refused rehearing, on
the ground that, by a rule Of the, Court,
case involving. a principle of law which
had been decided in a previous case,
could not be rehcard, unless one Of the
Justices in the majority IN tie
previous case asked re-
heraing, and none of the four in the ma
,jority asking rehearing, the case could
not be heard. So, rehearing was re-
fused because a rule Of the Court was
against it.
This rule and the Courts action under
it, which at first sight seems arbitrary
and unjust, may be wiser than it seems
The Court like others, may some times
act wiser than it knows The general
opinion seems to be that Justices Strong
and Bradley would hold the law to bel
constitutional in its application to the
payment of debts, contracted previous toI
its passage, as well as since. II 50, we
deem it well that even rule Of the
Court stood in the way. The previous
decision, as far as it goes, is a step in he
right direction, and we should be sorry
to see the Court take any backward ac-
ton. On the contrary, we should glad
TO have the Court decide the legal tender
law to be unconstitutional in its applica-
ton to the payment of debts, contracted
since its passage, as we'll as. before
Such decision might wake Congress to
its duty of providing money adequate toI
the wants of the country. Something of
the kind may be necessary or Congress
may sleep forever on the subject
Congress has power to coin money toreg-
ulate the value thereof, and Of foreign
coin What is money? It is that which
is coined by Government that which is
coined stamped, and impressed, by the
authority of Government, as theI
representative of value It is clear
ly the duty of Congress toI
see that sufficient amount Of such
money,Ttaken in connection with foreign
coin, the value Of which it has regulated,
is provided to meet the requirements of
the business of the country. No subter
fuge, no whipping the devil around the
post, will answer the purpose. 1t is the
duty of Congress to provide for the COIN
jng--the making--of a sufficient amount !
of money. A promise to pay Is not money.
Treasury Notes and Bank Bills are prom
ises to pay, and are not money. The ex-3
preston of money is, " l am" and not "
promise" The expression of Treasury
Note or Bank Bill is, "Ipromise.
Money never promises. Trearury Notes
and Bank Bills always promise. The
difference is clear and distinct. The
Constitution provides for the one and
knows nothing of the other And it |
would be well, if Congress would keep
itself within the Constitution. All the
action of congress in substituting Treasu
ry Notes and Bank Bills--promises to
pay-for money, has been outside the
Constitution, except, perhaps, as war
measure. And the war having come to
close, it is time war measures should
come to close also.
There is nothing in the Constitution as
to the material of which money shall
be coined-nothing saying it shall be
coined of gold, silver, copper, nickel, any
more than of paper. Besides, if
there was, the Constitution could be
amended in this respect, as well as in
others. 1t is not SO much the intrinsic
value of the material of which money is
made, as the stamp, the impress, upon it,
by the authority of Government, that
gives it value. Paper, with the stamp,
impress, and authority of Government up
on it, is, as money.as good as any metal, so
far as the authority of the Government