The Portland daily press., 1884-03-18
The Legal Tender Decision.

neIu nin III 0eserVedly high esteem Tor his
intellectual power and moral worth.
The Legal Tender Decision.
There appears to be in some quarters a
misapprehension of the scope and reach of
the late decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States in the legal tender case.
1t was net decided that paper money is as
good as gold or that it can by any fiat of law
be made to be of the value of gold or even of
silver. 1t was decided that Congress has
| the power to issue a paper currency and
make it a legal tender in satisfaction of
debts at any time when it chooses to do So
1t had previously been decided by the court
| that the issue of legal tender notes which
was made in war time was a constitutional
exercise of power The case last decided
was brought to ascertain whether a reissue
| of notes which had been authorized in time
of peace was also within the constitutional
| powers of the National Legislature
When the first issue of notes with legal
tender quality was proposed, it was opposed
by the Democratic party as unconstitutional.
Az DO A0Auly uClCuQcu ny Tie htpuUllCdU
party as warranted except as an extreme and
necessary measure of national preservation,
justifable in an exigency as an exercise of
highest sovereignty. The power If it existed
at all was supposed by most to belong to
what were sometimes called the war pow
ers'' of the Constitution. 1t was this view,
strongly brought out In the debates attend
ing the first exercise of this desperate means,
which was perpetnated in the opinion of
| those who thought the reissue of the notes,
which was in effect another exercise of the
same power in time of profound peace with
no national peril impending, was unconstitu-
tional. A confusi on has resulted from the
talk about there being underlined war pow
ers of the Constitution which made acts
constitutional in time of war which would
not be constitutional at another time. The
fact is there are no war powers in that sense
which are different from peace powers. If
it would be unconstitutional to issue legal
tenders in time of peace it was unconstitu-
tional to issue them in Zine of war.
The real meaning of the decision, as we
regard tits that the nation as living organ
ism has characterization powers inherent
in the conditions of sovereignty. The court
holds that Congress has always and under
all circumstances the right to issue legal ten
der notes, because Congress is the legisla
ture of sovereign nation, and the power to
make such issues is power inherent in SOW
ereignty, and it is not expressly withheld
from Congress by the Constitution.
''This view," says one writer, sis supris-
ing, because the words of the Constitution
are, that the powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor Fro
hibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people,
The decision of the court would seem to be
an assertion that the power Of Congress is
as supreme as that of Parliament, except
that it cannot exercise powers expressly
withheld. This is a position apparently in
conflict with the plain words of the Consli-
tuition, yet certain powers distinctly grant
ed, with the authority to do whatever is
necessary to carry out those powers, are
held by the court TO legitimate its opinion"
If it be granted that the power to issue
legal tender notes in payment of debts is a
power belonging to national sovereignty, we
do not see how it can well be argued that it
does not belong to the Congress of the Uni
ted States, for although it is not expressly
ssssaesssetaa sIIEsissa Ststes BY the Com
stitution' it is expressly prohibited by It
to the States" and SO cannot by the terms
of the Constitution be power reserved to
the States or to the people," If there is any
such powers existing anywhere, it resides
with Congress, as the only depository Of
those rights of sovereignty which are pro-
hibited to the States.
The Supreme Court holds that the powa
to issue legal tender notes in payment Of
debts is power pertaining to sovereignty,
and rests in Congress. II holds, therefore,
by necessity, that Congress as the sovereign
legislature, is the only judge of the exigency
which calls for an exercise of the power, aad
that any specific exercise OF the power shows
that Congress has judged it to be necessary
at that time. There can be no question
about this. Congress, in matters of legisla-
ton that are within its powers, is sole judge
of the need of legislation and of the extent
to which 1t must 60, and is not subject to an
opinion of the Supreme Court on these
points,,
This, then, is settled, so far as it is prac-
tical question, That Congress has the power at
discretion, to issue legal tender currency to
any ameRnt. But this decision of the court
does not have an atoms weight affecting the
wisdom or unwsdom of exercising the pow
er. Probably every ore OF the judges who
assented to the opinion would hold that the
issue OF such notes is mischievous. aud not
to be justified in practice by anything but ex-
treme necessity. Although nobody can lon
ger oppose constitutional objection to the
schemes of the advocates OF unlimited lDfa-
ton OF the currency, the objections founded
on the laws OF finance and trade, and Oh
public morals, are as potent as they ever
were. Initiation is not particle less danger
Gus 10 sound prosperity, not particle more
Justiiable as practical policy, than ii was
before. Nor do we believe that the decision
of the court greatly increases the peril Of the
nation. 1t is not the constitution, but the
sober judgment of an intelligen public sep-
timent which must be depended upon to
prevent Congress from doing unwse things.
Not the constitution, but the people have
prevented Congress from issuing more legal
tender notes than have been issued.
Our Boston Letter.
Matthew ArnoId's Verdict Upon Bosfoni-
sns-Ehe p Ovineial Taint-The Growth