The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1876-10-17
State Laws and Silver Money,

OIdL0 AdWS anu Silver MONEY,
The act OF Congress demonetizing sill.
yer and making only gold the standard
Of value and the legal tender for
amounts over five dollars, is likely to
beget serious questions as between the
National and State Governments. We
have heretofore expressed, through our
columns, opinions adverse to the de-
monetizltlon of silver, founded upon
general principles of finance. In all the
arguments submitted on this subject in
Its discussion, both in this country and
In Europe, that have come within our
notice, we find nothing inducing us to
retract any views or opinions hitherto
advanced. On the contrary, we have
found much in the arguments of our op.
ponents to confirm our views in opposi-
lion to the demonetization OF silver.
But, without now entering upon any
aisquisition of the expediency or gen.
eral principles involved in such course
Of legislation by Congress, we deem it
important to present the idea concerning
SAO SOhAASV Ihub 10 llhSll w dIISE De-
tween National and State legislation
upon the subject. That such conflicting
legislation is impending can not be
doubted. That any conflicting legisla-
tion upon monetary subject, so import
ant to the common welfare as is this,
would be mischievous to the public good
Is equally obvious. To avoid any con-
flict of laws touching this matter, should
be the study and desire of every legisla-
tive body in the land. Otherwise all the
mischieis of diverse laws proceeding
from adverse legislation threaten to
come upon US.
The form which this conflict of legis-
lation will assume is already foreshad-
owed in The idea that the States may, by
their own separate legislation, declare
silver coin to be legal tender for all
amounts, the act of Congress to the con-
trary Notwithstanding. Should such an
enactment be passed by any State, it
would, of course, amount to a nullifica-
lion of the act of Congress demonetiz-
Ing silver, to the extent of all matters
falling within the jurisdiction of such
State. And should all the States so en-
act, the Congressional enactment would
necessarily become, to all intents and
purposes, imperative and void. 1t re.
quires no extraordinary sagacity to
toresee the mischievous disturbance
such conflict of laws would produce
In the business of the country.
The first question that will arise in
the public mind when this proposition is
suggested, must be as to the constitu-
tional power in the several States so to
enact, in contravention Of the act of
Congress. 1t has been commonly con-
sidered that the power Of Congress over
this subject is supreme, and its jurisdic-
tion exclusive. But, this may we'll be
doubted. The exclusive power in Con-
gress "to coin money and regulate the
value thereof" is unquestionabIe, be-
cause specifically conferred by the Con-
stitution. Bat the Constitution no
where conters exclusively upon Con-
gress the express power to declare what
shall be the legal tender in payment of
debts. That instrument, as to the action |
Df Congress upon this subject, is abso-
lutely silent. In nothing does it posi-
lively direct, nor prohibit, as to the |
power OF Congress in this regard. And |
yet the power has always been exercised |
by Congress, aud has never been dis
puted. But the question now arising is
has Congress the e1claStoe power over
the subject
While there is neither express Corsti-
tutional commandment nor prohibition |
as to Congress on this subject, there is
an express prohibition to the several
States in regard to the same. But that |
prohibition does not go to the extent Of
pr .cluding the States from any action |