Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-09-24

confine the case to the naked question
before the court. whether Greenman could
make legal tender to Juillard of re-
issued Treasury notes, hut placed the de-
cision on u ground designed to establish
for ever the despotic control of Congress
over the standard Of values, and 10 re-
cognize its right to dcbasc the coinage,
and through il TO repudiate government
obligations A short extract shows the
deliberate purpose Of the opinion. Under
the powers. ii reads:
To borrow money (nnd) to coin money
(anD regulate the value thereof, Congress
is authorized ito establish national cur
rency either in coin or IN paper. and to
make that currency lawful money for all
purposes, MS regards the national govern
ment, or private individuals" land as
If to give an express judicial sanction to
the silver agitation they said so, under
the power to coin money and to regulate
its value Congress may (is IL did with
regard to gold by the act of June 2Sth,
1884, CHI. %, and with regard to silver by
the act of February 2Sth, 1878, CHI. 20)
issue coins of the same. denomination az
those already current by law, but of less
intrinsic value than those, by reason
of containing less weight of the
precious metals, aud thereby enable
debtors to discharge their debts by
the payment of coins of the less real
value. A contract to pay certain sum
of money, without any stipulation as to
the kind of money in which it shall be
paid, may always be satisfied by payment
of that sum in any currency which is
lawful money at the place and time Mt
which payment is to be made. Q1O U.
S. 449.l
In the light of these decisions it seems
extremely improbable that the Supreme
Court could be induced to take the view
that public debts must for ever be paid
in gold, while conceding to Congress the
right to make private debts payable in
silver of half its value. What does seem
not improbable, however, is judicial re-
examination of the whole subject. The
Supreme Court was really led into the
legal-tender decisions partly by the neces-
sty, actual or assumed, of finding some
legal ground for a currency system al
ready established, and partly by a desire
to uphold and strengthen the hands of the
government in its use of all the means
| it had laid hold of to save its life. There
was no desire to invalidate contracts or
dcbase the currency in the minds of the
| Judges, and most of those now on the
| bench tof those who united in the opinion
| in ,Iuilliard VS.. Greeninan only two re-
main) probably already view with some
| alarm the practicable effects which the rec
ognition of the congressional right to
tamper with the currency is producing.
Should the subject be re-examined, the
court would be forced, IL seems to us, to
reailirm the view so ably expounded in
Hepburn VS.. Griswold by Chief Justice
Chase. simply because the reasoning of
the legal-tendcr eases and Juilliard VS..
Greenman will not stand examination.
This REORGANIZATION of the matter would
no longer fortunately involve the obliga-
ton of existing contracts in any way, for
It would merely affirm for the future the
inviolability of the gold standard, which
events more powerful even than judg-
ments of the Supreme Court have tecreed.
and re-establish principles of constitu.
tional Interpretation which have been
much confused by the legal-tendcr cases.
Meanwhile we see nothing to be gained
by trying TO persuade ourselves that the
legal-tender cases fall short of rendering
the courts perfectly impotent to check n
fraudulent lowering of the standard of
value, in any direction.