The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-07-07
THE TANGLE THE sILvERITEs HAVE
GOT INTO.


Let heaven be thanked that the Silver bill
has at least encountered delay. Its oppon-
ents resorted to dilatory tactics when it came
before the House on Tuesday and were able
to fritter away the day so effectively that
silver made absolutely no advance whatever.
We do not believe in the principle of fiibus-
tering being of the opinion that the most
direct method is the best method in all cases.
But bill for the free coinage Of silver IS IN
der present circumstances fraught. in our
opinion, with so much of peril to the country
at large and 10 the Democratic party that We
shall shut our eyes to the methods by which
it may be beaten whatever they may be.
The point made by Messrs. Bland and Cul-
berson against the bill as it passed the Senate
is certainly good one. The point is this
The act Of 1890, providing for the monthly
purchase of 1900 900 ounces Of silver, made
the certificates issued by the Government in
payment Of this silver legal tender The
bill. which passed the Senate last week. re-
peals this act. No reservations whatever
are made in this repeal 1t is
simple and naked repeal of the act
of 1890. OF course it was only intended to
repeal the provision for purchasing 800 900
ounces each month But this intention is
not expressed the bill. 1t simply repeats the
act of 1890. Now, say Messrs Bland and
Culberson, if you repeal that act outright
you repeal the part Of it which made the cir
tifcates issued undor it legal tender; and it
seems clear that the courts, on the well-set-
tied principles of construction of statutes
would be compelled 10 hold that the new bill
had that effect.
The advocates Of the new bill make two
answers TO this point. Many say:
1st, That the certificates being issued under
an act that made them legal tender, d contract
was thereby embodied in them that they should
be legal tender. and it is not within the power
of Congress now 10 impair the obligations of
this contract and
ID. That the settled principles for constru-
ing statutes forbid such a construction TO be
placed upon the new bill.
In respect 10 the first we have this to say
The Constitution of the United States forbids
any STATE to pass law impairirg the obliga-
tons of a contract but it nowhere forbids the
Congress Of the United States to pass law
impairing the obligations of contract.
Ii is true there have always been jurists
who have declared that there are implied
limitations on the power Of Congress which
would make one of its acts impairing the OBJ
legation Of contracts void Lord Chancellor
Thurow even declared once that an act of
the omnipotent British Parliament impairing
the obligation of contract would be void
But no court has ever held an act of the Brit
ish Parliament void. and the Supreme Court
of the United States has never held an act Of
Congress void as impairing the obligation Of
contracts. though many such have been before
it. All three of the bankrupt acts that Con-
gress has passed impaired the obligations OF
contracts in freeing the debtor from past
debts.
The act making greenbacks legal tender
impaired the obligations of contracts in fore
Ing creditor to receive deprecated cur
rency when he had lent gold dollars. But the
Supreme Court sustained the validity OF the
bankrupt act and OF the legal tender act.
although It was conceded that both impaired
the Obligations of contracts In the Legal
Tender cases Chief Justice Chase. in dis
senting opinion or Wall at p. $50 denied
Congress the power to pass an act impairing
the obligations Of contractors. but hs was over.