The Washington times., 1935-02-20

will be relieved I
that a trouble M
some problem M
has been some AzzSzEzSs-
how ironed out. Lewis Aaney
Many, however, will feel that a
bulwark for the maintenance Of
standards" of all kinds, has been
lowered.
Perhaps the most unfortunate
part Of the performance is that
the Supreme Court will inevitably
suffer in prestige. 1t has, by s.
to-4 decision, virtually decided
that there can be no standard for
our money. BY the same token, it
has decided that the Supreme
Court itself is not the standard for
our rights under the Constitution.
The main facts OF the decision
are as follows:
l. No payments in gold are to
be made-On bonds or gold GER
tificates. Various clauses and
stipulationS concerning payment
in gold are not to call for Speci-
fic performance. More than
that, such clauses do not even
call for an equivalent" in pur-
chasing power. Thus it becomes
impossible for an individual to
make a binding contract to pro-
tect himself against monetary
Juggling by his government.
2. Accordingly, cor pOratiOn
bonds are not binding except in
terms of illegal tender" currency
no matter what it may be.
Such obligations are made sub
ject to congressional monetary
policies.
3. The Government itself may
be liable for actual damages
caused by such a reputation Of
its own contracts as it made in
1888. But the Government may
get around such liability by re-
fuSinG to be sued.
In a. sense, the Government Is
still held to be bound by its own
bonds, and in this respect Con-
gresS is admitted to have exceeded
its powers under the Constitution.
But the Government can remove
itself from suit. In any case, the
only basis of recovery lies in
proven damages, such damages to
be measured by changes in paper
prices between dates of purchase
and maturity Cor sale?). not on
the basis of anything promised in
the bond!
In short, there is to be no
''norals" in money or bonds.
But losses on Government paper
caused by congressional action
may be recoverable. This pos
sibility may yet involve much
trouble to the Government, and
this fact may somewhat limit
future monetary manipulation.
The argument of the major
fly is confused, and marked
by a laboriOus attempt to drag
in citations of all sorts to prove
the power of Congress. They
maintain that Congress can do
anything to money, and that
the reputation of gold clauses
is, therefore. somehow involved
and justified.
The idea of "uniformity" in
currency is stressed. 1t is held
that to require payment as
specified in gold clauses would
interfere with such uniformity.
In this connection, the old
face saver of an emergency"
is brought in. HOarding and
gold exports were considered
BY Congress as creating an
"emergency'-and Congress is
the Judge! ut seems to follow
that all an Administration
needs to do is to make its own
"emergency'' by becoming insOl.
vent. Then it can do anything).
Outstanding is the blow dealt
to the principle of a standard for
money. Currency is to be uni
FORM" which means that no stand
ard substance is to be used to
measure the depreciation of paper
money. In fact, gold and silver
are somehow to cease being COM
modities and become merged in
the futile concept Of legal tender. :"
The court talks of the new
standard" (the devalued gold dol.
1ar), but what's the use if, first
gold cannot be had, and, second,
a NEW new standard" may be
legislated every little while!
The Constitution is upheld, but
what does it mean? Ttt> New
Dealers exceeded their powers, but
what of it? The Administration
lost-but it won!