The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1875-08-13
HYDnHRISY
Gov. Morton, in his speech at Urbana,
in this State, recently, said:

Gov. Morton, in his speech at Crbana,
in this State, recently, said:
But / here unmask this whole fraud
and impOsture The advocates OF more
greenbacks in the place Of national bank
notes are the enemies of the greenbacks.
as they have ever been. They are ut
terly opposed to a national currency il
every form. When the greenback cur
rency was first proposed in 1852. and
was Indispensable 70 the suppression CT
the rebellion and the preservation OF the
Union, the Democratic leaders every
where denounced It a. unconstitutional;
did everything in their power to make it
worthless. and TO bring it into dishonor.
This warfare against the constitutional
ty OF greenbacks has never been reiin-
quished to this hour. When Clief-Jus-
tice Chase, with the majority Of the Su
preme Court, decided that the issue of
greenbacks during the war, under a mil
itary necessity TO preserve the life oil the
nation, was unconstitutional. the de-
cision was heralded everywhere. 10y the
Democratic party as the grandest tri-
umph Of constitutional principles known
in our history. and when, afterward,
during the administration Of Gen. Grant,
the membership Of that court having
somewhat changed. the cOnrt decided,
by a majority Of one, chat the issue OF
greenbackS during tiir war, under press
ure of national military I.ecrssity, was
constitutional, tine Democratic parry,
with one accord thruuglloH; tine United
States, declared that tlir d"cisiuH was
corrupt, and that the court bad been
H. 4 'r.r I'm haf
pose. And You will remember that,
during the canvass of 1872, the charge
of having hacked tlIc Supreme Court
TO procure n decision sustaining green
backs, in fiagrant violation of the Con
stitution, was the most persistent and
cIamOrous made against Glen. Grant and
the Republican panty. Democratic lead
ers have not changed their opinions up
Oh that subject. Only the other day,
ut GaliipoliS, Mr.. PendletOn asserted in
the strongest terms that, as a member OF
Congress, hc had opposed the issue of
greenbacks in 1862, because they were
unconstitutional, that he had never
changed his opinion, and believed that
Congress had no such power. Mr.. Thur
| man, Mr.. Bayard, and | believe every
Democratic member of the Senate, have,
from time to time, denied the power of
| Congress To make greenbacks legal
tender, charged that the Supreme Court
by which the decision was made was
| packed, although the decision went no
| further than holding that Congress had
the power to pass such u law in time of
war. If the Democratic leaders now be-
| lieve that greenbacks are uncODstitu-
tional, how can we sufficiently condemn
the hypocrisy of the demand for new
issue of hundreds of millions TO take the
| place of national bank notes? If they
| believe them to be constitutional, no
condemnation can be severe enough for
their conduct during the war, when they
denied their constitutiOnality and did
all in their power to dishOnOr them at a
time when they were necessary to pre-
serve the life of the nation.
The question as TO whether II Treas
ury note can be made legal tender in
payment of debts is purely question of
law, to be decided finally by the Su-
preme Court of the United States, and
there is not a respectable Democratic
lawyer now in the State of Ohio who
does not believe that a new law creating
further issue of greenbacks as n substi-
tute for national bank notes, or for any
other purpose, would be declared by
that court unconstitutional and void.