Year: 1879

The Legal Tender Test Case.


1t was curious statement which we pub
lished yesterday from our special cor
respondent at Washington presenting the
motives and the steps which have led to the
| agreement between Mr.. Chittenden and
General Butler to make up a case for test
ing the constitutonality OF the issue or
reissue of legal tender notes since the close
of the civil war. Not the least interesting
part of this communication consisted OF the
letters exchanged between Mr.. Chittenden
and General Butler on the subject.


We are not of those who expect any i'm
portant results from this singular proceed
ing. The ground of our distrust is the un-
certainty whether the federal courts will
entertain such o suit. 1t will be mere
moot case gotten up for the sole purpose of
testing the constitutionality of a law. Both
parties to the agreement seem we'll enough
| aware that the courts would dismiss fic-
| titious case. Mr.. Chittenden says in his
letter, II propose that we sock suitable
| test case, which, Of course, must be a real
one." General Butler says in his reply that
he is willing to argue the question before
the courts Sin any manner that case may
be made-of course, an actual case" But
can an actual case be made? Areal case i'm
plies actual parties in interest-that is to say,
parties who have private stake in the result
aside from the general interest which they
share with the whole country in the de-
cision of an abstract constitutional ques-
tion. The Supreme Court never decides
constitutional question for the mere sake
of deciding it, but only as Q necessary
means Of administering justice between liti-
CANT parties who have some other interest
than the decision Of ON abstract point of
law for the general benefit Of the public.
We doubt whether the Court will enter
tain q suit foisted upon its attention for the
mere purpose of getting decision on an
abstract legal question.


There is a strong presumption against
the case being what Mr.. Chittenden calls
"a real one' and General Butler '.an
| actual case," in the avowed object of the
parties Neither of them has any real
interest in jeopardy for which he seeks the
| protection of the courts. What they con-
template is a purely fictitious suit, which
| is yet to be invented, and which would
never DO sought from the ordinary motives
Of litigants. Another presumption against
| the genuineness Of the case is the fact that
| there Gun be no real conflict of interest
| between party who offers to pay
debt in greenbacks and q party who
refuses to accept them and demands
coin. There is not the slightest
shade Of difference between the value
of the two. On the face of the
transaction it is q mere mask for suit
having another purpose. A court can
easily test tho reality of the case The
creditor who refuses to receive five thou
sand dollars in greenbacks when rendered
by his debtor thereby foreits his claim if
the greenbacks should be adjudged legal
tender, or if (which would amount to the
same thing) the Court should refuse to en-
terrain his suit. Willany creditor take this
risk in good faith? 1t is competent for the
understanding between the parties that
this forfeit shall not be exacted, and if there
is such an understanding the suit will. Of
course, be treated as fictitious.


II such test case as is proposed should
be entertained the substance of it might
seem somewhat shadowy to the judicial
mind. 1t is simply whether the greenbacks
issued or reissued since the close of the
war arc to be regarded as new creation Of
that species Of paper money. The amount
authorized previous to the close of the war
has not been exceeded. What has actually
happened is that dofaced or wornout notes
have been replaced by others since the war
as well as during the war. Had the original
notes been printed on more durable ma
terial there would have been no place for
the curious question which has now been
raised. Is the mere substitution of fresh
notes for wornout ones a new creation Of
paper money? This is the real question
on which this test suit is to be brought.
The substitution bears some analogy to the
recent issue of duplicate bonds to the Man
haitian Savings Bank, which creates no new
debt but only acknowledges an existing
one of which the evidence has been lost.


An Accident ON tho Metropolitan s'L."


We earnestly invite the attention of the