Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-01-13

preme court of the United states wa
Democratic. AT the December tern
that year case was brought befor
the court involving the validity OF tn
legal tender issue and the decision wa
given that the constitution did not au
,horize such currency. This was
dampe, on the theory of the Republi
can party, so boldly enunciated by
| grim old Thad. Stevens, that AS "a
war measure" anything was justitiabie
a less scrupulous and adroit party
than the Republican would have sue.
cumbed. But this party never lacked
a resource, no matter how questionable
its nature, and they were equal TO the
! emergency this time. Congress was
Republican and Grant was president.
Congress passed bill increasing the
number of justices of the supreme
court by two and Grant appointed two
Republicans. This broke the Demo
cratic majority in hesupremecourt and
il was once more Republican. More
than this, at the March term, in 1870,
il rendered "a decision reversing the de-
cision of the previous December. Thus
the legal tender was in the saddle
again, firmly seated. The bold and pal
pable partisanship of this measure at
tracted a great deal of attention at the
time, for it was too patent to escape
notice. Thus the matter assumed a
new phase. 1t was conceded that con-
gress, as Ia war measure, was warranted
in issuing the treasury notes, but the
Democrats now contended that the
war being over this class OF money
should not be continued in continuous
circulation. They argued that when n
treasury note came into the national
treasury, as dues to the government,
it should be kept there, destroyed, and
not paid out to so into circulation
again. 1t is this point whichis involved
in the suit brought before the supreme
court this week. 1t has been docketed
for several years, but not reached until
now, and it is confidently anticipated
that decision will be had at this term
of the court. Eminent lawyers, such
men az Senator Edmunds and Ben
Butler, are engaged on each side. 1t
goes without saying that the result will
excite large degree of interest, es-
pecially on the part of capitalists. 1t
is not SO much the retirement, gradu-
ally, of the few hundred millions of
legal tenders, but Il broader principle
is involved-one,, perhaps, on which |
hinges the question of "a future nation
al paper currency. At the rate the |
bonds are being paid ii is but a ques-
ton of few years when the natiu. al |
banks must go, and with them their
circulating notes. What then? Either
treasury notes issued by the govern
nent, or the wild catn bank notes of |
earlier days. And if this supreme
court shall decide that Il treasury note.
used for while as legal tender, aud |
then finding its way again 10 the ma
tional treasury, must not be paid out IA |
second time, then the theory of pa
per currency, made up exclusively OF !
treasury notes nov suggested and re- |
lied on by many Of both parties) to
succeed the national bank notes. is !
demolished. And what hen? Either |
measures to continue the national |
banking system, in some form. or a |
constitutional amendment which |
shall give TO congress, plainly and |
without any complications, the au- |
ihority to print paper dollars and keen |
them in perpetual circulation Tor ss |
long as they last as the government
does it, gold and silver coin. To this
it must come, one way or the other.
And thus it will be seen that the "lrial
of the legal tender" il matter of no
small Importance, for on its outcom.
may hinge the natureo the currency
of the future.
----><rr--------