Ashtabula telegraph. (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1874-1880, 1875-10-08
Origin Of Legal Tenders-A New Issue
Now Would Be Unconstitutional.

doubled.
Origin Of Legal Tenders-A New Issue
Now Would Be Unconstitutional.
Judge Taft well defines the coDstitutionality
Lie addresses in Ohio, and as clearly shows that
new issue now, in time of peace, would be
unconstitutional. He says:
The issue Of the greenbacks was justifable
only as a war measure. In principle, there
can be no justification for the issue of incon-
Vertible paper to be used as currency in time
of peace, when the credit Of the nation is avail
able abroad and at home. Nothing but same
supreme emergency, like civil war, could
| justify resort to this expedient. At the time
when the greenbacks were issued the rebellion
had created in England and on the continent
\ of Europe belief that our Union was efTectu-
ally broken up. Our credit abroad was de-
| strOYed. Our own people had faith in our
Government and its prospects, but had not the
money to supply the public necessities. They
would gladly take the United States notes in
payment of debts, and for services, and for
their property. Our soldiers asked no better
pay. They knew, too, that it was their only
chance. In this exigency the notes were issued
and made a legal tender, which was clearly
constitutional and exPedient-
10 nave He1u OLH6THlSb WOulu nave De6Q 10
decide against carrying on the war at all. It
would have been to despair of the Union and
abandon the contest. This tie Republican
party was not prepared to do. 1t was not pre-
pared to "let the Wayward sisters depart In
peace;" or "to let the Union slide" 1t re-
solved to fight, and in order to fight to some
purpose it resolved to have money; and, as It
could not get it from abroad, at that time, when
it was wanted, it resolved to make and put in
circulation, for the time being, its own notes,
and require the people to take them as money.
They had faith in the integrity of their Govern
ment, and, in a cause so dear to them, were
willing to take its promises as gold and silver.
But it was war measure, and so regarded by
them, and as such it was justified. On this
ground the Supreme Court sustained the valid
| ity of the acts of Congress in the legal-tender
cases, IL Wallace's Reports, 54O.l The Court
| say, when testing the constitutionahty Of the
legal tenders:
"This brings US to the inquiry whether they
we're, when enacted, appropriate instrumental
tiles for carrying into effect, or executing any
Of the known powers of Congress, or of any
department Of the Government. Plainly to
this inquiry, Consideration of the time when
they were enacted, and of the circumstances
in which the Government then stood, is impor-
tant. It is not to be denied that acts may be
adapted to the exercise of lawful power, and
appropriate to it, in seasons of exigeney, which
would be Inappropriate at other times"
"a civil war was then raging which seri-
ously threatened the overthrow Of the Govern-
ment, and the destruction Of the Constitution
| itseH.". "The necessity was immediate and
| pressing. The army was unpaid" "Foreign
credit we had none" ''It was at such time
and in such an emergency that the legal
tender acts were passed"
Tho Court again say: 'Tt Is plain to our
view, however, that none OF those measures,
which 1t Is now cOnjectured might have been
substituted for the legal-teRdeF acts, could
have met the eEigeneies Of the case at the
time when those acts were passed. We have
said that the credit of the Government had
been tried to its utmost endurance"
And Mr.. Justice Bradley, in his coneurring
opision, page 60, says: 'tIt is not an attempt
to coin money out of Yaluless material, like
the coinage of leather, or ivory, or koWrie
shells. 1t is pledge of the national credit, It
is promise by the Government to pay dollars;
it is not an attempt to make dollars. The
standard of value is not changed. The Gov
eminent simply demands that its credit shall
be accepted and received by public ind prigGts
creditors during the ps'sdiRg ezigency. Every
government has right to demand hais lrhsl is
existence IS at stake. The interests of every cit
izen are bound up with the fate of the Govern
ment. None can claim exemption. If they
cannot trust their Government in its time of
trial they are not worthy to be its citizens"
{" 1t follows" says the Judge, 'ss a eorol-
larry from the views which have expressed,
that the power to make Treasury notes 3
legal tender, while q mere incidental one to
that Of issuing the notes themselves, and to
one Of the forms of borrowing money, is,
nevertheless, power not to be resorted to
except upon extraordinary and pressing oe-
casions, such as war or other public exigen-
cies of great gravity and importance; and
should be no longer exerted than all the cir
cumstances of the case demand"
How sdmirablythe career of the Democratic
party has conformed to the Constitution, as
thus expounded by the Supreme Court of the
United StatesI When the crisis came which
alone gave. Congress the rightful power to
issue its notes and make them legal tender,
the Democracy opposed the law as both uncon-
stitutional and UnWiSe. But now, when the
crisis has passed, and the war Is over, when
the reconstruction of the rebel States has been
successfully accomplished, and our 8 per cent.
bonds are above par abroad as well as at
home, they come before the country with =
proposition to leave the old notes unpaid, and
issue untold millions of new ones.
This new Democratic policy would lie in di-
rect violation Of the fate of the nation, pledged
by the act of June 80, 1864: "That the total
amount of United States notes issued, or to be
issued, shall never exceed four hundred mil
lions, and such additional sum, not exceeding
u4Jy Euog
for the redemption Of temporary loans"
To violate that limit now, and in a time Of
peace and plenty, would be SO fearfully omin-
Gus of reputation as to dLscredit the paper
itself and impair our national standing.
Nor is it probable that the Supreme Court
would hold such an issue of legal-Jender notes,
at the present time, constitutional. The
court, In the case of HepWOrth VS.. Griswold,
where the question of the eOnstitutionality Of
the legal-tender acts was first tested, decided
by a majority Of one against the constitution
ality of the act authorizing them and making
them legal tender as to existing debts. But
after the accession of two additional Repubh-
can Judges, that decision was Overruled by
majority of one in favor of the validity Of the
act for reasons which 1 have already shown
Chief Justice Chase and all the judges OF
Democratic antecedents dissenting and holding
the legal-tender acts unconstitutional as 70
contracts existing when the acts were passed.
This Democratic platform is drawn with
partisan shrewdness. The grand object was
to hold forth to the people the lstter.
ING idea of plentifUlness of money, and at the
same time TO allay the scruples Of those whe
would not be captivated with the idea by 9
sounding manifesto against bank monopoly.