Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1879-07-17
Inconsistent Statesmen.

hHo III OHc uIcdln ucAOuuCo lHO CCh-
tralization of power in the national gov
ernment and in the next insist that Con-
gress should assume the exclusive juris-
diction over the currency of the whole
country, have ever found the time or Op-
pOrtunity to explain the inconsistency
of their two positions, which are as
wide apart as the poles. While they
claim to be strict cOnstructiOnists of the
Constitution, they have on the financial
question departed as far as possible from
the doctrines of its makers, who thought
that they had carefully guarded against
the dangers of legal-tender paper money
by expressly refusing to insert i'll the
Constitution a grant of power to Con-
gress to "emit bills on the credit of the
United States" We do not forget that
the Supreme Court has upheld the legal
tender acts, but the decision was limited
to the war issues of greenbacks, and
would not support the legality of any
new issue. Judge Strong in concurring
almost apologized for the ground which
he took. 1t is easy to see that he was
acting under the compulsion of the far
reaching consequences of declaring the
paper which had circulated in such large
amounts and for 30 long time to be
without validity as a tender of debts.
His mind was plainly influenced by the
magnitude of the evil consequences
which he thought would follow a con-
trary decision in unsettling values. His
colleague, Judge Bradley, however, ex-
pressly limited the right of Congress to
make paper legal-tender to occasions
of great emergency, such as war OF some
other overpowering public necessity. If
the Democrats of to-day stood fast to the
Democratic principles of the past they
would be found strenuous opponents of
any new emission of greenbacks, and
that position would at least be consis-
tent with their ideas as to the limitation
of the federal power. How can the
general government assume to regulate
the currency of the whole country when
no such prerogative is vested in it by
the Constitution? This question has
been asked many times, but the Thur
mans, the Ewings and the VOOrheeses
have never yet deigned to reply to it.
The Constitution declares that Congress
shall have power to coin money; but
coming money and issuing paper curren-
cy and regulating its volume are two
very different things. Nobody ever pre-
tended that the latter power was ex-
pressly granted. If glanted at all, it is
granted by implication, but the champi-
ons of the "0hio idea" reject the doc
trine of implication, except as to meas
ures which may be necessary or apprO-
pirate in order to carry the enumerated
powers into effect. Now, it is certainly
not necessary to emit paper currency
and regulate its volume in order to car
ry into effect the powers to coin money,
therefore, Democrats and Greenbackers
in Ohio, or anywhere else, assert for
Congress this control over the currency
they abandon the doctrine of enumera-
ted powers, and practically claim that
Congress may do anything that is natu-
rally possible, and not expressly prohib-
tied. No depth of casuistry can recon-
cile the theory of enumerated powers
enunciated in the Ohio Democratic plat
form with the financial Idea" contained
in the same declaration of alleged prin-
ciples.
Public men who profess such mortal
dread of federal usurpation of reserved
rights ought to enlighten the people
upon the extent of this vast authority
over the circulating medium of the
country which they say inheres in the
national legislative body. If one Con-
gress may say that the volume of paper
currency shall be a thousand millions,
another may say that it shall be hun
dred thousand millions, or only one mill
lion. The sweet and uncomfortable will
of majority of the De La Matyr stamp
might expand it to five thousand dol
lars per head of population, with gratui-
ties, under the mask of loans, to every
bogus and inflated improvement compa'
ny that would take the trouble to back
its wagon up to the doors of the treasu-
ry. Our Democratic friends can per-
ceive an immense danger in the national
power to supervise the election of rep
resentatives, but in their eyes 1t is alto
gether safe to trust Congress with pow
er to initiate and contract the currency
at pleasure. And yet, at the same time,
they attribute to the exercise of the con-
tracing power the panic of 1878, and all
its train of suffering and evil. They
propose to continue an authority that,
by their own story, has spread abroad
misery and desolation, and brought the
country to the verge of revolution. They
insist that the power of Congress to pro-
duce prosperity by expansion, or wretch
edness by contraction, shall no more be
denied that its right to fix custom du-
ties and internal taxation. Vehement
ly asserting the doctrine of enumerated
powers when it is proposed to legislate
fraud and violence at elections, they
fling this identical doctrine to the winds
when it is proposed that Congress shall
have power to impair the obligations of
contracts to any extent, and to promote
speculation by imitation, or squeeze the
debtor classes by contraction. The able
politicians who are thus facing both
ways depend very largely upon the igno-
rance of the people and their inability
to detect how irreconcilable the two
standpoints are. All that is needed for
ols