New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-12-27

of these few persons should be considered, in
disregard of the WISHES of The great majority
of citizens. and to the deiriment of the public
interest.
The argument OF Mr. Edmunds sets forth
clearly the considerations with respect to pub
lie policy which may well control in tins mat
ter 4 decision rendered at an early day.
with lcgal-tcnders still in great demand Ut
par, and with foreign commerce in such con-
di,ion that any Inconvenience here couid DE
promptly met by demands upon foreign
boards would occasion no serious disturb
ance. But n decision of the same I'M
port il made with lega-tenders below
par and with different condition
Of foreign trade, would cause incaculaDle
loss Indeed, the very soycncy and honor OF
The Nation might he endangered by decision
adverse 10 the constitutionaity Of legal-tender
issues, if rendered at an unfayorabie time
The certainty that the question cannot long
be PIT aside, and the assurance that
f rendered at this sine, 1t wouid
not involve disasters winch might in other cir
cumstaaces be apprehcnded, are surely good
reasons for carly action by the Court. When
it j. compelled to consider questions OF The
eravcst public Importance, it IS surely both inc
RICH. and tie duty of the Supreme Court to so
time its action as to cause no unnecessary
mischief.
The politicians whose interests seem To be
opposed to n speedy decision are of two classes.
There are Republicans who have committed
themselves TO Greenbacs notions so far that
any collapse of those notions wOuld leave
them stranded. and who have so little other
q 4. .,f. y CDf
Element Of the legal-tender question would
deprive them of all hope OF support.
These men have been fighting against The pre-
vaiing opinion and tendency of their party. II
the currency question should be settled, they
would have no right to expect any future po-
litical existence. But il IS not well that the
prosperity Of the whole country should he de-
layed merely in order to keep these persons IN
Office On the other hand, there are Demo-
Gratis who have been fighting against the pre-
vailins opinion in their party, and Who pave
been hoping for some recognition and success
if they could convince their party OF
the necessity of adopting hard-mcney
policy. Men like Mr.. BayNrd have staked
everything, politically, upon their ability to
draw their party ont OF its fatal alliance with
ropudiators. Perhaps it would be uneracious
TO say that their zeal for sound cur
rency and for the public faith would
have been more timely had they made
the fight to the utmost before the
Demooratics party had failed to carry
the country in alliance with repudia-
tors In tleir present attitude, these
Democrats certainly merit hearty sympathy
But that is no reason for delaying decision
which the public welfare demands. They have
seen fit to postpone determined struggle for
sound currency until final decision on the
money question can no longer be delayed with
out serious public injury, and great risk OF
immeasurable disasters. Not on their ac-
count should decision be deferred.
In truth. the sooner this question is decided
the better. The American people are ready to
accent and sustain the decision OF its highest
court. Here and there crazy individuals are
found, who have staked everything upon Their
success as sOft-mOney agitators, who tell us
that the country will no more respect de
cision against legal-tenders than it dd
over twenty years ago in favor OF slavery
Bat these unhappy persons know very little
of the people whom they aspire TO represent
or to influence. The people wish to know,
from the highest authority, whether the con-
tinued use of legal-tender notes is cOnstitd-
tional. If the Supreme Court declares that it
is NOT, there will instantly be an end of the
money question in all its most dangerous and
perplexing phases.