The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1878-10-31

Oop0ress known as the Legal Tender acts
constitutional when applied to contracts
made before their passagef And, second
ly. are they valid as appliable to debts
contracted since their enaCtmentP These
oue1tions ha 10 been elaborately argued,
and they have received from the Court
that consideration which their great inn
portance demands"
Proceeding to brush away the distinc'
ton implied by the two questions, the
Couit says on page b3O;
'ssThere ia no we'll founded distinction
to be made between the constitutional
validity Of an act Of Congress declaring
Treasury notes legal tender for the pay
ment of debts contracted efter ils passage
and that Of an act making them legal
tender for the discharge of all debts, as
well those incurred before as lhose made
after the enactment"
The argument then made is latitudina'
riau in the extreme, taking the highest
ground in behalf Of the numbers aud ex-
tent of the powers vested in the Federal
Government. ,n
The Court says, on page 632 Trims
the power to levy and collect taxes, 10
coin money and regulate it's value, %
raise and support armies or to PROVIDE
for and maintain navy are instruments
for the paramount object, which was TO
establish q Government sovereign within
its sphere, with capabilitY of self preser'
vation thereby forminga Union more
perfect than that which existed under the
old Confederacy,"
After citing authorities and argument
the Court further says, on pages 1884
"That would appear, then, to be a most
unreasonable construction of the Consti'
tuition which denies to the Government,
created by it, the right to employ freely
every means, not prohibited, necessary
for its preservation and the fuIhllment OF
its acknowledged duties. Such a right,
we hold, was given by the last clause OF
the eighth section OF its first article.
"The means or instrumentalities refer
red to in that clause and authorized are
not enumerated or defined. In the ma.
ture of things enumeration and spectca-
ton were impossible. But they were
left to the discretion of Congress, subject
only to the restrictions that they be not
prohibited, and be necessary aud proper
for carrying into execution the enumer,
ated powers given to Congress, and all
other powers vested in the Government
of the United States, or any department
or officer thereof"
After elaborately fortifying this posi-
ton the Court says, on page 639: win
these rules of constitutional construction
before us, settled at an early period of tho
history Of the Government hitherto uni
versslly accepted and not even now
doubted, we have safe guide to a right
decision of the question before u.s. Before
we can hold the legal tender acts uncon-
stitulional we must be convinced they
were not appropriated means or means
conducive to the execution of any or all
Of the powers of Congress, or Of the Gov
ernment, not appropriate in any degree
(for We are not judges OF the degree OF
appropristeness), or we must hold they
were prohibited. This brings US to the
inquiry whether they were, when enact
ed, appropriated instrumentalities for
carrying into effect or executing any of
the known powers of Congress or of any
department of the Government"
The court then discusses the appropri-
ateness of the legal tender as a T cans "of
maintaining the army and navy, for SO.
curing large supplies of money needed,
and indeed for the preservation of the
Government created by the Constitu'
tion," and holding they we're essential
says page 542: "The degree Of the ne
Cessity for any Constitutional enactment,
or tbe relative degree of its appropriate
ness, if it have any appropriateness, is
for consideration in Congress, not here.
That would be to assume legislative pow.
er, and to disregard accepted rules for
constituting the Constitution" And, on
page 543, "The case of Teazie Dank and
Fenno (8 Wallace, 533) presents sug
gestive illustration. There q tax of ten
per cent. on State bank notes in Circula-
ton was held constitutional, not merely
because it was a means of raising reVe.
nue., but as an instrument to put out of
existence such a circulation in competi-
ton with notes issued by the govern.
ment. Then, this Court, speaking thro'
the Chief Justice, avowed that it is the |
constitutional right Of Congress to pro
vide currency for the whole country; |
that this might be done by coin, or U. s
notes, or notes Of National Banks, and |
that it can not be questioned that Con.
gress may constitutionally secure the ben
eft of such currency to the people by |
legislation. 1t was said there
can be no question of the power Of this
to emit bills of credit; to |
make them receivable in payment OF
debts to itself; to fit them for use by those
who see fit to use them in all the trans
actions of commerce; to make them a
uniform in value and descrip,
tioD, and convenient and useful for CirCu-
lation. Here. the substantive power to
tax was allowed to be employed for i'm
proving the currency. 1t is not easy to |
see why, if State Bank notes can be tax
ed out of existence for the purpose ofin-
directly making United States notes
more convenient and useful for CONNER
cial purposes the same end may not be
secured directly by making them a legal
tender. Concluding, then, that the pro-
vision which made Treasury notes le-
gal tender Tor the payment OF all deDts,
other than those expressly excepted was
not an inappropriate means for carrying
into execution the legitimate powers Of
the government we proceed to inquire
whether it was forbidden by the letter
Or spirit of the constitution"
The Court then examines all the argu-
ments in favor Of the view that the max.
ing OF notes legal tender is prohibited and
concludes the opinion thus, page 552.-
III, therefore, they were what we en-.
1eavored to show, appropriate means for
legitimate ends, they we're not trsnsgres-
,ive of the authority vested in Con-
,resS.2
Justice Bradley, who agreed with the
reasoning and conclusions of the Court,
its opinion by a separate argu-
nent. He said, page 500: mo one
doubts at the present day, nor has ever
~ IL "a