The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-06
THE LBGAL-TBNDBR DECISION.

1Ae supreme COufJ OIL UHe OnlJeu OldleS
first decided, by bare majority of one, that
Congress had not the power to give United
States notes the quality of legal tender. The
majority opinion was by Chief justice Chase,
and the dissenting opinion by Justice Miller.
The breadth and strength of the latter decis-
ion at once secured for it the assent of the
country. The court was enlarged by the adj
dition of two justices-Strong and Bradley.
A rehearing of the case was had, and the first
decision reversed by majority of one, the
dissenting opinion being given by Justice
Field. Thus the matter rested, the power
of Congress being in legal equipoise, and
remaining doubtful question. The decision
of the court just made public is under the act
of 1878 for the retirement of greenbacks the
question arising out of the reissue of a portion
of what is known as the retired reserve. The
court unanimously holds that the case involves
the same question as the original case-that
of the power of Congress to give legal-tender
quality to the notes of the United States, and
by eight to one, the court agrees with the
second decision, affirming this power Such a
decision will settle the legal question beyond
further controversy. The decision is based
upon the broadcast grounds of the nationality
of the general government, and together with
the decision in the Ku-klux cases, given on
the same day, declares that the United States
is Nation, with the biggest possible IN, :"
having all the powers of sovereignty that
belong to other nations and possessed of
every attribute of constitutional government
not specially inhibited by the constitution.
The decision does not say the government
can make fat money. 1t simply says that
Congress can give to the nations notes. paya-
BILE in coin, the quality of legal tender. The
decision, when understood, is not boom for
fat money, but is boom for Nationality.
The court decides that the power of
issuing legal tenders is po-
htical one, resident in Congress, and one
with which the Judicial department can have
nothing to do. Congress is the sole judge of
when the power shall be exercised, how long
its exercise shall be continued, and the extent
I to which it shall be used. The dissenting
opinion of Justice Field is not legal decision,
but speech upon the economic side of the
question; an inquiry into the propriety of the
exercise by Congress of power which
eight members of the court say is
constitutional prerogative However strong
Justice Fields arguments may be, the place
for them is upon the floor of Congress and not
on the bench of the Supreme Court. The eff
feet of the decision is to relegate the whole
legal tender question to the political depart
ment of the government. In the spirit of
Justice Marshall the Supreme Court
has laid deep and broad the founda-
tons of the National government and
given it an ample chart Of power, so that by
its wise exercise by those to whom it is com
mitted under the forms of the constitution,
there can be no further danger of the Nation
being slowly strangled to death by strict con-
structionists, or dying of hamilton because its
agents find their hands tied with the withes
of State sovereignty.