Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-03-04

one of the powers belonging TO sovereignty
in other Civilized nations, and not eX-
pressly withheld from Congress by the
Constitution, we are irresistibly impelled
to the conclusion that the impressing
upon the Treasury notes of the United
States the quality of being legal tender in
payment of private debts is an apprOpri-
ate means conducive and plainly adopt
ed to the execution of the undOubted
powers of Congress consistent with the
letter and spirit of the Constitution,
and, therefore, within the meaning of that
instrument necessary and proper for car
rylng into execution powers vested by
this Constitution in the Government of
the United States.' Such being our con-
cluslons in the matter of law, the question
whether at any particular time in war or
In peace, the eXigency is such by reason
Of unusual and pressing demands on the
resources Of the government, or of the in
adequacy of the supply OF gold and silver
coin to furnish the currency needed for the
uses of the government and Of the people,
that 1t is, as a matter of fact, wise and
eXpedient to resort to this means,
is political question to be
determined by Congress when the ques-
tiOn of eXIgency arises, and not judicial
question to be afterwards passed upon by
the courts. 1t follows that the act of May
81, 1878, is constitutional and valid, and
that the Circuit Court rightly held that
tender i'll Treasury notes reissued and put
IN circulation under that act was a tender
OF lawful money In the payment OF the de-
tendants debt to the plaintiff. The iudg-
ment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
The opinion is by Justice GRAY, Justice
Field dissenting.
THE 8 PER CENT. LAND CASES.
A decision was also rendered by the
court to-day in what are generally known
as the per cent. land cases, viz. the
State of Iowa and the State of Illinois
against Noah G. MacFarland, Commits
sioner of the General Land Office. These
were petitions for writs of mandamus to
compel the Commissioner of the General
Land Office to make a statement of the
account between the United States and
the States of Iowa and Illinois. tor the
purpose Of ascertaining if money is due
said States under the acts providing for
their admission to the Union, which
authorized the payment to them of per
cent. of the net proceeds of the public
lands lying within their limits which
should be sold by Congress. The question
presented by the cases is whether or not
public lands located by military bounty
land warrants come within the scope of
the acts above mentioned, that is,
whether such lands are lands sold by Con
gress. The court holds that under the act
of March 3, 1915, relating to the admission
Of the State of Iowa into the Union, or the
act of April Is, 1918, for the admission of
the state of Illinois into the Union, by
which per cent. of the net proceeds of
the lands lying within the State and after
ward sold by Congress is reserved and
appropriated for the benefit of the State,
the State is not entitled to a percentage
on the value of the lands disposed of by
Congress in satisfaction of military land
warrants. The writs of mandamus prayed
for are therefore refused and the petitions
dismissed. The opinion is by Justice
Gray, Justices Miller and Field dissenting.
The amount of land located with military
bounty land warrants under various acts
in nineteen of the Southern and Western
States up to June 30, 1882, was 60, ,322, 900
acres, the largest amounts being in Iowa,
Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin and Mime