The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1878-08-29
WHAT WAS DECIDED.

WHAT WAS DECIDED.
Was the Greenback Constitu-
tional Only as q War Necess-
ity?
The Republican stumpers continue
10 reiterate the assertion that the
in time of peace would be
unconstitutional, and that the U. S.
Supreme Court based the constitution
ality of the act authorizing them upon
the fact of it's being War measure"
In his speech at Massill0n on Saturday
General Garfield said that the substi-
tuition of greenbacks for National
Bank notes would be a "fiat violation
of the Constitution ;" that "a majority
of the Court defended the greenback
only as q war measure" SC.
The Cincinnati Enquirer contains an
able discussion of the subject in which
it most clearly demonstrates that the
Supreme Court did not base its decis'
ion upon any sach frivolous pretext.
1t says:
"In the first place, the Supreme
Court did not assume legislative func.
tions. The Court is the judge of the
Legislative yOscer. Not OF the wisdom
or expediency of measure. The
Court named the question it decided
" The fundamental question, that
sclsich tests the ralidity Of the legistG-
ton, is, can Congress c0nstitMtiOnatty
qive to Treasury notes the character
and qualities Of money? Can such
notes be constituted a legitimate ctrcW-
lating medium, having a defined legal
value? Q2 Wallace, p. 500. The Su-
preme Court certainly ought to know
the question it passed upon, and in
this. the Courts statement of 1t, the
"war measure" feature nowhere ap-
pears. The Supreme Court was not
guilty of declaring that the COnsti
tuition is one thing to-day and an
other thing tomorrow; that what is
constitutional this week is unconsti-
tutional next week. The Congress is
the Judge of the times and circumstan-
ces under which the power is to be
exercised. The Supreme Court can
only answer the question, Does the
power exist2 The Court said 12
Wallace, p. 500 that the power ITO
make Treasury notes legal tender for
the payment Of all debts" was "cOn-
fessediy possessed by every independ-
ent sovereignty other than the United
States" The Court called attention,
to be sure, to the vast and evil cOnse-
Quences that would follow q decision
the reverse of that it gave, but it said {:
"The consequences of which we have
spoken, serious as they are, must be
accepted, if there is q clear incompat-
ibility between the Constitution and
the legal tender acts" Here is no
mention of the war power to issue
legal tenders as distinguished from the
peace power. The Court said az Wal.
lace, p. 542): "Can this Court say that
(Congress) ought to have adopted one
(methOd) rather than the other? Isl
our province to decide that the means
selected were beyond the constitution
al power of Congress, because we may
think that other means to the same
ends would have been more appropri-
ate and equally eficient2 That would
be to assume legislative power, and
to disregard the accepted rules for
constituting the Constitution. The de-
gree of the necessity for any Congress
sional enactment, or the relative de-
gree Of ats appropriateness, Is for con-
sheraton IN Congress, not here. "
Here is no mention of q power in time
of war to issue greenbacks that does
not exist in time of peace; but on the
contrary, this language, defining the
functions Of the Court not only does
not, but has no right to base decis-
ion on such grounds. By the Courts
! own statement it neither does nor can
render such decision. The Court
| referred to q former decision in the
case of Veazie Bank vs. Fenno, and
said: There this Court. speaking
| through. the Chief Justice, aU0sceGl
that 1T is the constitutional right Of
Congress to proUide a currency for
the acholc country; that this might be
done bv coin, or United States notes,
or notes of National Banks" Here,
certainly, there is no assertion that a
peace greenback would be unconstitu-
lional, but quite the reverse. The
Court, in addressing itself to the di-
rect inquiry "whether it (the legal
tender act) was forbidden by the let
| ter or spirit of the Constitution" said /:
/" 1t is not claimed that any express
prohibition exists, but it is insisted
that the spirit of the Constitution was
violated by the enactment. =
If by this is meant that because cer-
tain powers oyer the currency are ex.
pressly given 10 Congress, all other
powers relating to the same subject
are impliedly forbidden, we need only
remark that such is not the manner In
which the Constitution has always
been construed. To
assert, then, that the clause enabling
Congress to coin money and regulate
it's value tacitly implies denial of all
other power over the currency of the
nation is an attempt to introduce q
new rule of construction against the
| solemn decisions OF this Court.
Whatever power there is over the cur.
rency is vested in Congress. If the
power to declare what is money is not
in Congress, it is annihilated." Here
is no assertion that the Congress has
power in 1862 to authorize the issue
of greenbacks while it has not in 1878
but the assertion is to the contrary
The Court said (12 Wallace, p. 553)
" What zoe 40 assert is, that COngyes;
has pO,cer to enact that the G0Uern
ments promises to pay money shall be
f0s. the time being, equivalent In Uatu'
to the representation Of vdlue determ
ined by the COining Acts. or to multi
yles thereof. = BUT, withoq
extending our remsrks further, it will
be seen that we hold the acts of Con
gress constitutional as applied to con
tracts made either before or after thei
passage" :. :,
This is the essence, the spirit, tn
language of the decision of the Su
preme Court upon the constitutional
ity of the greenback. We could quot
more at length to the same effect. III
statement that the Supreme Cour
pronounced the greenback constitu
tional only as a "war measure" is ab
solutely false. and they who make
know that it is false, or, else, are to
ignorant to teach the people. Th
Court not only did not SO decide bu
: distinctly said that it had no right t
-