Year: 1876

The abundance of silver discovered
and mined in these later years, and
the promised prolificness for the
future has greatly reduced the com
parative value of silver as to gold
Owing to this, there seems to be {
disposition in some quarters to de-
monetize silver. We are satisfied
i that the weight of the silver dollar
must be increased or it must be alloy
ed with more valuable metal ani
so keep up the old comparative valu,
between gold and silver. The Chi
cago Journal presents some excellen
views in regard to the legal tender
quality of silver, which we append


Speaking of the Silver bill recently
passed by Congress, and especially o.
the legal tender phase of the subject
the Nation observes that "the danger
"of a re-establishment Of the silver
"dOllar has not been removed, bu,
simply deferred until the next ses
sion"


1t is by no means certain that Con.
gress has any power to demonetize Ol
rob Of its legal tender value, either
silver or gold coin. 1t has attempted
to exercise such jurisdiction. What.
ever power Congress has is derived
from the constitution. There are two
articles which bear upon the subject
one positively, the other negatively.
In the second article Congress is en-
powered to "coin money, regulate the
value thereof and of foreign coin"
In the first article the States arc for
hidden to 3Ecoin money, emit bills of
"crcdit, or make anything but gold
land silver tender in payment of
debt These words cover the whole
ground taken by the constitution.
Brief as are the regulations, they are
full and explicit.


The plain Inference from this pro-
hibition is that the State NAV make
gold and silver, or gold or silver. a
tender for all debts, but the addition
to the legal tender list of paper mon
ey, copper coin, or anything else
usuable for the purposes of exchange,
would be unconstitutional. If any
State should see fit to pass law that
silver should be "a tender for all
debts" Congress would have no
power to annul that law, and any
Congressional Legislation in contra
vention of it would be null and void.
It would be illegal for State to
adopt restrictive clause, declaring
that gold and silver, one or both.
should alone be received as legal ten
der. Such n limitation would be an
attempt to take from Congress the
legal tender authority vested in it. If
then, any State should see fit to place
silver on par with gold as a legal
tender, it could do SO, and Congress.
iOnal attempts to the contrary would
be imperative.


1t is by no means certain that even
i'm the absence of State Legislation
Congress can demonetizc silver. II
it can that metal, it can gold. Both
are put upon the same footing by the
constitution. If one can be ruled
out, the other can, and if either, why
not both? Evidently the constitution
contemplated no such thing. 1t goes
upon the supposition that both shall
he money, in the fullest sense of the
term, when properly coined. If Con-
gress has the power to make paper a
legal tender. ii does not follow that IL
may take that quality away from me-
tall cmoney. Snpposing that the orig
inal legal tender act had gone to that
extent, or that any subsequent legisla-
tion had done so, would the Nation
or any other enemy Of silver, have
regarded such legislation as constitu-
fionai? We have no hesitation in
saying that they would have been
vehement in denunciation Of il as IL
legal as well as unjust.


II is altogether probable that if
test case We're brought, the Supreme
Court of the United States would
hold that silver is to-day legal ten
der for any debt in the United States,
Congressional restrictions to the con-
trsry notwithstanding.