The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1878-04-11
CREENBACKS.
What the Supreme Court decided in the
Celebrated Lega! Tender Cases-Secre-
tary Shermans's Error IN that ne


In the speech delivered by the
Hon. John Sherman, secretary OF the
treasury, at Mansfield, Ohio, on Fri
day evening, August II, 1877, as
printed by Judd and Detweiler, in
this city, the honorable secretary
made use of the following language:
"There is a large class Of people
who believe that paper can and ought
to be made into money without any
promise or hope of redemption that a
note should by printed,
THIS IS A DOLLAR,
and be made legal tender.
81 regard this as mild form of lu-
macy, and have no disposition to de-
bate with men who indulge in such
decisions. They have prevailed to
some extent at different times in all
countries, but their life has been
brief, and they have ever shared the
fate of other popular decisions. Con-
gress will never entertain such aprop-
Osition, and, if it should, we know
that the scheme would not stand a
moment before the Supreme Court.
That court only maintained the con-
stitutionality of the legal tender
promise to pay dollar by a divided
court, and on the ground that it was
issued during the war, as in the ma
ture of a forced loan to be redeemed
upon the payment of q real dollar;
that is SO many grains OF silver or
gold.
This positive statement Of the Sec
rotary of the taeasury with regard to
the decision Of the court OF last re-
sort upon a question intimately and
inseparably connected with the bust
ness of his Department, has been ac-
copied without hesitation as true by
that large class Of men who are too
INDECENT to investigate for themselves
and by that still larger class who,
having not at command the means of
investigation, are little disposed to
believe that.
TIE SECRETARY WAS IN ERROR.
The secretary asserted that the SUI
preme court of the United States had
decided that the legal tender note was
constitutional solely on the ground
that it was issued during the war as
in the nature of a forced loan.
The truth is that the supreme
court of the United States never de-
cided anything Of the kind.
The cases of Knox VS.. Lee and
Parker VS. Davis, which are common
ly known us the legal tender cases,
were heard before the supreme court
of the United States at the Dedem-
Der term 1870 and it was then decided
that the acts of congress known as
the legal tender were constitutional,
both as to contracts made before and
those made after their passage.
These cases are reported in the twelfth
volume of Wallace's United States
supreme court reports, page 451.
The court discussed with great
learning and copious illustration the
important questions involved, and
reasoned out conclusively the argu-
ment that under the clause of the
constitution which confers upon oon-
greSs the power to pass all laws neces-
sary and proper to carry into effect
the powers expressly delegated the
legislative department unquestionably
possessed the power to emit u legal
tender currency. That being in the
opinion of congress, Il proper and
necessary means for carrying out
EXPRESSLY DELEG ATED POWERS.
ITO assert, saws the court (p 545),
"that the class enabling congress to
coin money and regulate its values
tacitly implies u denial of all other
power over the currency of the ma
ton, is an attempt to introduce Il new
rule of construction against the SOL
emn decisions of this court. And,
on the same page, the court said:
1.-The states can no longer declare
what shall be.money, or regulate its
value. Whatever power there is over
the currency, is vested in congress.
If the power to declare what is money
is not in congress, it is annihilated.
On page SAT the court said, "How,
then, can the grant of 4 power.to coin
money and regulate its value made in
terms so liberal and unrestricted.
coupled also with denial to the
states of all power over the currency,
be regarded as an implied prohibition
to congress against neclaring treasury
notes legal tender, If such declara- |
ton is appropriate, and adapted to
carry into execution the admitted |
powers of the government
THE COURSE OF REASONING,
is in accordance with that which has |
constantly been employed by the court I
in analogous cases from the founda !
ton of the government.
The constitution gives no express +
power to congress 10 grant charters /
of Incorporation. yet it has been uni /
formly held that where it was necess- /
airy to carry out powers that were +
delegated. for instance, to create 4
national bank or to construct rail-
roads. the exercise of such power was
valid. and the question of the neceSsi-
ty and propriety of the means resort
ed to lies in the discretion of the leg
islatlve department.
So. too, in the case of legislation
for the punishment of crimes. Al
though certain crimes only. and few
in number, are mentioned for which
congress may provide punishment
yet legislation for the punishment of
many others has been held valid. be-
cause deemed necessary and proper by
congressto carry out powers expressly
granted