Year: 1879

Supreme Court in several shapes, but al


ways with important limitations. The


Court has decided in an Oregon tax case
that State law may make taxes payable in
gold, in spite of the Legal Tender act;


but that was on the ground that
State may levy taxes in kind-for in
stance, in wheat or wool or labor-and
this OF course left the legal tender question


untouched. In Hepburn against Griswold
the Court decided that contracts made pay
able in "dollars" and which were made be-
fore the Legal Tender act was passed must
be paid in coin or its equivalent, which was
declaration that the Legal Tender act was
not retroactive. 1t is true the Court
dded:-"We are obliged to conclude that
an act making mere promises to pay dollars
a legal tender in payment of debts pre-
viously contracted is not means appropri-
ate, plainly adapted, really calculated to
carry into effect any express power vested
in Congress; that such an act is inconsistent
with the spirit of the constitution, and that
it is prohibited by the constitution"
But in point of fact the case be-
fore it-Hepburn against Griswold- con-
cerned only claim that an agreement
to pay "dollars" made before the enactment
of the Legal Tender law could not be re-
deemed in greenbacks. In Bronson against
Rhodes the Court decided that coin con-
tracts are valid, the Legal Tender act to
the contrary Notwithstanding. Finally, in
Knox against Lee, the Court, reversing Hep
burn against Griswold, held that the Legal
Tender act was retroactive, and covered
contracts for the payment of ''dollars"
made either before or after the passage of
the legal Lender law.


What the Supreme Court has therefore
actually decided concerning the Legal Ten
der act is that it was constitutional as ON ex-
ercise of the war power, justifable on ac-
count Of extreme necessity, and to save tho
country that being enacted, it covers con-
tracts to pay ''dollars," whether made be-
fore or after its enactment, and that it does
not cover contracts to pay gold or any other
specific kind Of dollars, whether made be-
fore or after its passage. The Court has
never been required to decide whether
or not the constitution cenfers upon Con-
gress the power to declare paper notes
legal tender for private debts in the ordi-
nary course of legislation in time of
peace. No case involving this question has
ever come before it, and of course court
decides only the questions actually before
| it. court does not move of itself--it is
| moved.


1t is plain, therefore, that this question


remains open SO far as the Supreme Court is
concerned, and it is this question which two
citizens, General Buffers and Representative
Chittenden, have agreed to bring before it.


That they can do this in perfectly regular,
proper and effective manner is maintained
by capable lawyers, and General Butler,
who ranks very high at the bar of the Su-
preme Court, not only has no doubt Of it,
but in his reply to Mr.. Chittenden states
precisely the manner in which it may be
| done. He writes:-


| easily be made for friendly suit to


bring up the points. Let note of any person of up


of $1,000 be presented to him for payment Let
| him tender therefor payment in greenbacks OF the


issue the of any date since August 30


1866 which is the official date Of the end OF the


Let the party holding the note refuse the tender


bring suit Let tender be peaded. state what it


was and let that plea of tender be demurred to. and
| the record or the whole need not take up two


pages and thus raise the whole question of right


of the government in time of peace to issue legal
tender notes money.


That explains the whole proceeding, and


the method SO lucidly described by General
Butler has the concurrence of the two emf
| nent counsel engaged on the other side, Mr..
| William Allen Butler and Senator Edmunds
| The statutes of this and other States author
| ize amicable suits on IN agreed state of
| l., k1,ok - r.,
| by affidavits that the controversy is real and


the proceedings in good faith; and when such


a case SO made has been decided by lower


court the Supreme Coert will hear it on ap-


peal by either party to the suit.


1t remains, then, to ask whether it is worth


while to move the Supreme Court to decide


the question in point. About this no man


who has watched the course of currency


discussion in Congress for years past down
| to the very last week Of the last Congress


no business man who has found his enter


prises deranged by the general feeling of
| insecurity in the public mind concerning


the currency; no laboring man who COM


plains of the hard times and stagnation


caused mainly by the unwillingness of men


to begin new enterprises until the currency
| question is settled-none of these classes


can have any just doubt. Every session of


the last half dozen Congresses has spent


the greater part of its time in attempts to


do something by way OF tinkering with the


currency, and even the resumption of specie


payments, SO called, which has at last


como amid struggles lasting to the


very end for the repeal of the Resumption


act-even this important event has not


quieted the question or silenced the agita-


tors who want 10 unsette all that has been


accomplished. Although gold and green
| backs are af mar and although the nossessor