The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1878-09-26
THE cONSTITUTIONALlTY OF THE
CREENBACK.


money except as war measure. Re
publican orators, and many that the
people never looked upon as orators
loudly proclaimed last fall that the
constitution positively forbids the is
suing of money by the General Gov
eminent except as a war measure
In fact both of my opponents last
year proclaimed this, and the Demo
cratic candidate said it was evident
that we could have no further issue
of greenbacks unless we went to wal
for the power.
l submit this proposition If Con-
gress does not possess the power &c
issue money, how can it delegate the
power to the national banking corpo
rations to issue money How can it
delegate greater power than 1T pos
sesses All corporations are crea
lures of the government that creates
them, and have only just such powers
as the creator-the Government
gives them, and no other. Ii the
Government does not have the power
to issue money then it gives the cor
pOrations that it creates greater
power than it possesses itself. How
this can be is more than l can under
stand or solve after more than twenty
years arduous study and practice OF
the law. Perhaps some OF those all.
knowing orators of the old school OF
politics who never read a law book,
can explain the mystery.
Some of the wisest of these men
have gone farther, and told us that
the Supreme Court of the United
States has decided by it's solemn
opinion that the greenback was only
a war measure and that the cOnstitu-
ton absolutely prohibits the issue of
legal-tender currency only in time Of
war. When you hear one Of these
high-tOne clackerS make this as
sci ton you may rest assured that he
has never read the legal-tender de-
cision made by the Supreme Court OF
the United States OF else he has no
sort of regard for truth.
Our Supreme Court has been called
upon in various cases to decide as to
the constitutionality of the Legal
Tender acts Of Congress. The leading
ones are those of Hepburn VS.. Girls
void, reported in Wallace United
States Supreme Court reports, p. sos,
and the two cases Of Knox VS.. Lee,
Parker VS.. Davis, reported IN II
Wallace, 457. In the first case men
toned one Hempburn made a promls-
sory note ir the usual manner and
form, dated June 20, 1850, promising
to pay Henry Griswold SILL $50 on the
Goth day of February, 1862. This
note both bore date and became due
before the passage of the Legal-Ten-
der act of Feb. %, 1862. In this
case the question that was presented
for the determination of the Supreme
Court was whether or not the payee
of Il note, made before the Legal
Tender act took effect, was Obliged
by law to accept in payment United
States notes equal in nominal amount
to the sum due according to its terms
when rendered by the maker.
In this case the court held that all
contract for the payment OF money.
not expressly STIMULATING otherwise,
were. in legal effect and universal
understanding, contracts for the pay
ment of coin, and ruled that defen-
dant's tender of the United States
treasury notes was not Il satisfaction
of the debt, but that the contract,
being made before the law making
these notes a full legal tender took
effect, must be governed by the law
in force ut the time of the making Of
the contract, and that Hepburn must
pay Griswold in coin.
There does not seem to be any new
law in the doctrines here laid down.
which is that legislative enactments
cannot change or impair the obllga-
tion of contracts.
This decision was made in February
1870, and may have made some men
seriously reflect upon the status of
the 500 bonds, Notwithstanding the
passage of the act to strengthen the
public credit passed March Is, 1869.
and it had the effect no doubt to
hasten the enactment of the refunding
bill passed July IA, 1870, so as to have
our $40 bonds refunded and made by
contract payable in coin, which was
done on that date.
And it transpired that the decision
in the Hepburn-Griswold case did not
then suit the chiefs of the party.
Many of them had debts to pay off
that had been contracted before the
passage of the Legal-Tender acts. and
it suited their convenience to pay
just then in greenhacks instead of
coin. Bear in mind that no decision
had then or ever has been made de-
claring the law to be that debts con-
tracted while the Legal-Tender law
was in force could not be paid in
United States treasury notes, only
that they would not pay the debts
contracted before the passage of
these acts.
And. having the power. this party
no doubt increased the number of
Supreme Judges from seven. the num-
Der ON the bench at the time of the
Northumberland decision. to con-
sist of nine members, a Chief Justice
and eight associates. and on the 18th
day of February, 1870. Justice Strong
was appointed. and on the 2lst of
March Justice Bradley was appoin-
ted. Now, with Supreme bench
organized for the very purpose or
making decision that the greenback
was constitutional and would dis
charge any and all debts. whether
made before the Legal-tender acts
took effect or subsequent, the case of
Knox vs. T.ee. and Parker VS.. Davis.