The New York herald., 1870-04-01
Attorney General Hear ~ the Legal
Tender Dccisiou.


II will DO seen by our Washington news
published to-day that Attorney General Iloar
made an argument before the Supreme Court
in favor Of reopening The decision OF the Court
on the legal tender question. The Attorney
General admitted the dclicacy of opeaing
again any decision OF the Supreme Court, and
that its decisions were entitled to great weight
and the confidence OF the country; but he
argued that this decision was rendered when
there was not full bench, and then by
majority Of ono only; that the interests in
volvcd are vast aud general; that the principle
of the Lcga! Tender act at issue had been well
considered and acted upon by Congress and
the President; that the law had been sub
santially acquiesced in and carried out by the
people for nearly eight years, and that the
constitutionality Of 1t had been sustained, with
one exception, by every State tribunal He
maintained that such an important matter, in
volving the constitutional character Of the
legislation Of Congress and fundamental prin-
ciple as to the powers of tho government,
should not depend upon the opinion of one
man, and that it ought to be acted upon by
full court At the conclusion of his argument
aud after Mr. Carlisle had made one on the
other side, the Court said they would take the
matter under advisement.
The Attorney General did not hesitate to say
that 1t would be better for all parties concerned
If the decision Of the Supreme Court should
be changed. There appears to be no question
that Congress intended the Legal Tender act TO
apply to all contracts or debts prior to the pas
sage Of the act, as well as to those made after
It's passage. But the Court held that the act
was war measure, and justified only by being
snch, and that Congress had not the constitu-
tional power to make debts that were payable
in coin previous to the Legal Tender act pay
able in anything else. The real question at
issue seems to be whether Congress has
the power or not to make anything but
coin money legal tender. The Court ad-
mitted it had this power as war measure,
but implied that 1t had not in time of peace.
This was nice distinction. 1t was one which
finds no authority, we think, in the constitu-
tion. Either Congress has the power to say
what shall be money or legal tender, or it has
not, and no plea of necessity can change the
shall be money or legal tender the money it
creates, whatever it may be made of, must be
payable for all debts, whether contracted before
or after the passage Of the law creating such
money. The several States it is true, are pro-
hibitcd by the constitution from making any
thing but gold and silver coin tender in pay
ment of debts, but the government of the
United States is not 80 prohibited. If it had
been intended to limit the power of the United
States in this matter, as 1t was that of the
several States, that would have been clearly
expressed, no doubt, in the constitution.
The decision Of the Supreme Court has ap-
pcarsd to us from the first more a political
than judicial one; The object seemed to be
to drive the legal tender notes Of the govern
ment out OF existence, so as to give the whole
currency circulation of the country to the ma
tional banks. This impression was strength
ened when we saw the same purpose exhibited
in Mr.. Sherman's Funding bill. II the dcci-
sion of the Supreme Court is to stand it will
involve the country in trouble and all sorts of
litigation--that Is, unless we should soon reach
specie payments. The debts Of thousands
upon thousands Of debtors, amounting to many
hundred millions of dollars, will be aug
mented, many will be involved in bankruptcy,
and the rich creditors will alone reap any
benefit. Take only the mortgages made be-
fore the passage Of the Legal Tender act and
now existing, and the amount involved is stu
pendous. II values have greatly changed
since the Legal Tender act was passed the gov
ernnept has caused that, and debtors are not
responsible. Attorney General Hoar might
well say that the interests involved are very
great. But the question should be settled one
way or the other, and we think it ought to be
brought up before full bench, and that upon
the direct issue Of the constitutonality Of the
Legal Tender act