New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-03-17
TIE RESPoESIBILLrY or FEEEDoM

Thclcccnt decision of the Supreme Count mthe
lceal-tcuder cases does not accord with the opin
ions Of many who will nevertheless Loyalty re-
spcct as the law Of the land. Ever since the lIst
ofthc three notable decisions which the supreme
Court has now rendered on this subject, there has
been somewhat prevalent feeling that the con-
stituGonalty of the legal-tender acts could
only be sustained under great cXtra-judicial
pressure; that popular feeling or partisan
necessity caused the reversal of that earliest
decision; and that the ablest jurists, If they
could regard the question purely as one OF law,
would 90 back to the position first taken by the
court. Even among those who did not 90 to
that length, there were many who felt that
although the issue of legal tenders under stress
of grave public necessity might be warranted,
the later issues, made in time OF peace and
without such real or supposed necessity, must
be held unconstitutional. For this impression
it was supposed that strong ground was given
in the language Of the second decision by the
court. Hence there are many to whom the third
decision, and especially the very broad ground
taken by the court therein, will be surprising.
1t is already said that this decision is a public
misfortune; that it reyiyes tho greenback
debauchment of the currency at any future time
whenever a majority in Congress can find a con-
venent excuse for imitation. This, however, Is
not an opinion warranted by past experience
The creenback agitation died out, not because
the people supposed the issue OF legal tenders
unconstitutional, but because they discovered
that the legal tender quality was Of no use.
When II was found that the notes had been
made as good as gold prior to the date fixed for
specie resumption, rational persons perceived
that their valuation was not governed by what
Congress had declared their value to be, but by
public opinion as to the ability and purpose OF
the Government TO pay IFS debts He who
clamors for a big paper currency Is now set
down as half-crazy ignoramus, not because
the unlimited issue OF paper money Is forbidden
by the Constitution, but because it is forbidden
by common-scnse. Having advanced to that
point in monetary education, the people are not
liable to be confused or pcrpleXcd because t.
court has decided that the lcgaltendcr acts arc
not void.
On the contrary, the decision ought to impress
upon the public mind the supreme importance
of the steps by which National disbonor and
ruin have been escaped. The pOWer to disgrace
and to ruin has been in Congress for years; that
We have all known Nothing has prevented
catastrophe but the fidelity Of the people and
of their representatives,. SO it must be here
after. The sacred pledge given, that 40 addi-
tonal issue of legal tender notes should Doe
made, is not the less but the more binding
because of the decision Of the court. The
solemn declaration that AN adequate reserve
for the redemption of notes on demand should
be prepared and maintained, and that, after
day fixed, such notes should be redeemed in
coin whenever presented for payment does not
become the less a necessary cornerstone OF
public prosperity. Legally the country stands
where II has stood all the time; the notes are