Year: 1871

The following from the London
Times of May 4th will serve to illustrate
foreign opinion on the late unfortunate
decision Of the Supreme Court relative
to the legal tender act. A certain al
lOWance is always to be made for un-
friendly sentiment in the discussion of
our affairs by the Times, but in this
instance, we regret to say, it has done
little more than speak the truth fairly,
and if with severity, not more so than
the case merits:


The news transmitted to US by our
Philadelphia correspondent, that the
new members added to the Supreme
Court have forced the court to reverse
its own decision on the legal tender
act, announces one of the


MOST DEPLORABLE EVENTS


that have occurred for many years
in American history. The court no
longer defends the principles of the
Constitution against the violence Of
party and the injustice Of power. Men
were much shocked, and not without
excuse, when the Supreme Court, un-
der the presidency of Chief Justice
Taney, denied to Dred Scott the status
of freedom; but the decision in that
case, though questionable, was not
without some show of reason in its IA
vOr, and it was undeniably pro-
nOUnced according to due course Of
law. The decision of the present
court is violent as well as unjust. 1t
has been pronounced by a court
packed for the purpose.


IT REVERsEs A JUDGMENT


arrived at, after deliberate argument,
by the same court before new mem
bers were added for the purpose Of
sWamping its decision. We must
add, as being able to survey the ques-
ton from position of impartiality,
that it is directly in conflict both with
the principles and precedents of
American law. At the end Of the
first year of the civil war Congress
passei an act authorizing the Secre-
tary of the Treasury to issue prOmis-
sorry notes payable to bearer, and it
provided that "such notes shall be
receivable in payment Of all taxes,
internal duties and shall
also be lawful money and a legal ten
der in payment of all debts, public
and private, within the United States.


THE LEGALITY OF THE ACT


was Immediately questioned, on the
ground both that it was er post fdctO
and that it abrOgated the validity of
contracts. Money had been lent in
hard cash within the Union, and even
to States of the Union, both by its
citizens and by foreigners, and this
statute gave debtors the power of sat
isfying their pre- existing debts by
payments in inconvertible paper.
The difference in value of paper and
bullion rapidly increased until paper
was worth not more than forty per
cent. of its nominal value, and credi-
tors loudly protested against being
thus mulcted of their just claims.


THE MASS OF THE PEOPLE,
on the other hand, were very well
satisfied with what appeared to be a
convenient mode of disCharging their
debts, and the apOlOgists for the ac-
tiOn Of Congress attempted to justify
it by referring to the power given to
the Legislature under the COnstitu-
ton "tO coin money and to regulate
the value thereof" The point thus
in issue is so simple that it was diff
cult TO understand how it could be Sc
riOusly contested. except by taking
into account the perversiOn Of judg-
ment OccasiOned by the heat and fren-
" of the war; and the friends of the
UniOn rejOiced that, through the de-
laws that must necessarily arise, the
question could not easily be argued
on appeal before the


SUPREME COURT


until after the fury of the contest was
The result seemed to JUS
tify the expectations. The legality of
the legal tender act did not come
before the Supreme Court until the
summer Of 1859, and it was then ar
gued at such length, and with such
patient examination of every plea
bearing upon it, that Judgment was
not pronounced before the spring of
last year. When it was given it was
found that the Supreme Court decided
by four to three that the act of Con- !
gress was invalid so far as it presumed
to make the notes its authorized legal |
ender for the satifaction of debts eX-
lsting before the act was passed.


IT CONDEMNED THE ACT


to this extent both as ez post jdcto
and abrOgating the obligation of con-
tracts, and ordered debtors who had |
Incurred debts before the act to satisfy
their creditors in the same medium in |
which the debts were incurred-that !
Is to say, in gold and silver. The de- |
1isiOn was given by a bare majority, |
but It was hailed as a noble instance Of |
The triumph Of law and Justice that /
among the majority was found Chief |
Justice Chase, who had been Secre- |
-ary Of the Treasury when the act was |
passed, but who had been converted |
by sheer force of reason to disallOW |
The validity Of law passed under his /
auspices. All our congratulations |
were, however, premature.


The decision Of the Supreme Court |
thus reported is


AN IMMENSE MISFORTUNE
10 the American Union. When the |
egal tender act was passed, in the /
neat of the war, immediate advantage |
was taken Of its provisions by all the |





Rhode Island. The Legislature of New |
York fastened to pay of in paper the |
1reditors Of the State, although many |
merchants Of the city offered |
10 lend the State, without interest, the |
balance between paper and gold, in |
)nder that faith might be kept with /
he public creditor. When, however.
he Supreme Court last year declared /
he act unconstitutional in its retro. /
,pectlve bearing, the Legislature of
New York adopted 8 resolution af- /
irming that the State debt, principal |
nd interest, ought to be paid in
Ipecie, and authorizing the purchase
If gold for the purpose. The Legisia-
ure of Maine adopted a similar resO- /
dton, end the judgment Of the court |
vas thus seen to elevate the morality /
1f the nation.


ALL THIS MUST NOW BE REVERSED.
and the latter end will nrobabfy he /