Democratic Sentinel, Volume 8, Number 7, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 14 March 1884 — LEGAL. [ARTICLE]

LEGAL.

Important Decisions by the Su Supreme Court of the United States. | The Issue of Legal Tender Notes Agal Dedared Constitutional by That Tribunal. A Habeas Corpus Denied in the Cel ebrated Georgia Ku-KLux Cases. A decision has just been rendered by tbe Bo preme Court of the United States in the long pending legal-tender case of Augustus D. JuiUav va Thomas S. Greenman, brought before it b a writ of error in the Circuit Court of the Unite States for the Southern District of New York The question presented by the case, as state* by the court, is: ’‘Whether the notes of th United States, issued in time of war under ai act of Congress declaring them to be legal ten der in payment of private debts, and atterwart in peace redeemed and paid for in gold coin at th Treasury, and then reissued under the act o 1878, can, under the Constitution of the Unite* States, be a legal tender in payment of sue! debts. The court is unanimously of the opin ion that the present case cannot be dlstinguishe* in principle from the cases heretofore decide* and reported under the names of “legal-tende cases," and all the Justices except Justice Field who adheres to the views expressed in the dis senting opinions in those cases, are of th opinion that they were rightly decided. Th court holds, therefore, that Congress hac power to issue obligations of the United State in such form, and to impress upon them sue! qualities as currency for the purchase of merchandise and the payment of debts in aocor* with the usages of sovereign government The power (as incident to the power of borrowing money and issuing bills and note of the Goverment for money borrowed of impressing upon those bills or notes th quality of being legal tender for the payment of private debts was a power universally understood to belong to sovereignty in Europe an* America at the time of the framing and th* adoption of the Constitution of the Unite* States. This power of making notes of th* United States legal tender in payment of priVati debts, being included iu the power to borrov money and to provide a national currency, it not defeated or restricted by the fact that it* exercise may affect the value of private contracts. If, upon a just and fair interpretatiox of the whole Constitution, a particular power oi authority appears to be vested in Congress, it it no constitutional objection to the existence o* to its exercise that the property or contracts ol individuals may be incidentally affected. “Congress," the court says in conclusion, “at the Legislature of a sovereign nation, being expressly empowered by the Constitution to laj and collect taxes, to pay debts, and to provid* lor the common defense and general welfare o! the United States, and to borrow money on th* credit of the United States, and to coin xnonej and regulate the value thereof, and of foreigi coin, and being clearly authorized, as incidental to the exercise of these great powers, to issue billx of credit, to charter national banks and to provide a (national currency for the whole people it the form of coin, Treasury notes, and national bank bills, and the power to make the notes oi the Government a legal tender In payment of private debts being one of the powers beloagini to the sovereigns in other civilized nations, an* not expressly withheld from Congress by the Con we are irresistibly impelled to the conclusion that the impressing upon the Treasury notes of the United States the quality of being a legal tender in payment of private debts is an appropriate means, conducive and plainly adapted to the execution of undoubted powers of Congress, and consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and therefore, within the meaning of that instrument, necessary and proper for the carrying into execution of the powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United btates. Such being our conclusion in the matter of th* law question, whether at any particular time in war or peace the exigency is such, by reason of unusual and pressing demands on tbe resources of the Government, or of the inadequacy of the supply of gold and silver coin to furnish the currency needed for Uses of the Government and of the people, that it is, as a matter of fact, wise and expedient to resort to this means, is a political question to be determined by Congress when the question of exigency shall arise, and not a judicial question to be afterward passed upon by the courts. It follows that the act of May 31, 1878, is constitutional and valid, and that the Circuit Court rightly held that the tender in Treasury notes reissued and kept in circulation under that act was a tender of lawful money in payment oi defendant's debt to the plaintiff.” The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

THE FIVE-PER-CENT. LAND CASES. A decision was also rendered by the court in what are generally known as the 5-per-cent land cases—viz.: The State of lOwa and State of Illinois against Noah C. McFarland, Commissioner of the General Land Office. These were petitions for writs of mandamus to compel the Commissioner of the General Land Office to make a statement of the account between the United States and States of lowa and Illinois for the purpose of obtaining what sums are due said States under the acts providing for their admission to the Union, which authorized the payment to them of 5-per cent.- of the net proceeds of the public lands lying within their limits which should be sold by Congress. The question presented by the cases is whether or not public lands located, by the military bounty land-warrants come within the scope of the acts above mentioned — that is, whether such lands are "lands sold byCongress.” The court holds that “Under the act of March 3, 1845, relating to the admission of the State, of lowa into the Union,>or the act. of April 18, 1818, for the admission of the State of Illinois into tbe Union, by which 5 per cent, of the net proceeds of lands lying within the State” and afterward “sold by Congress," is reserved and appropriated for the benefit of the State, the State is not entitled to a percentage on the value of lands disposed of byCongress in satisfaction of military land-war-rants. ! The writs of mandamus prayed for are therefore refused and the petitions dismissed, THE KU-KLUX CASES. A decision was also rendered in what are known as the Ku-Klux cases, which stand on the original docket under the title, “Ex parte, in th* matter of Jasper Yarborough and others,” They are petition* for writs of habeas corpus to release a number of persons now imprisoned under judgment of the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia, rendered after the trial and conviction of the prisoners for the offense of threatening, beating, and otherwise intimidating colored voters at an election in Georgia for members of Congress. The principal question presented relates to the constitutionality of the law under which the prisoners are held. Justice Miller, speaking for the court, after deeiding that the offense set forth in the indictment is fully covered by Secs. 6508 and 5520, Revised Statutes, says: "That a government whose essential character is republican, whose executive head and legislative body are both elective, whose most numerous and powerful branch—the legislature—is elected by the people directly, has no power and no appropriate laws to secure this election from the influence of violence, corruption, and fraud is a proposition so startling as to arrest attention and demand the gravest consideration. If this Government is anything more than a mere aggregation of delegated agents of other States and Governments, 'each of which is superior to th* General Government, it must have power to protect an election, on which its existence depends, from violence apd corruption. If it has not this power, it is left helpless before two great natural and Jiistorical enemies of all republics—otfen- violence and insidious corruption." He asks, if it be not doubted that Congresshas powers to provide Jaws for the proper conduct of elections for Representatives in Congress, Are such powers annulled because an election for State officers is held at the same time and place? and replies: "These questions answer themselves, and it is only because the Congress of tue United States, through long habit and long years of forbearance, has, in deference and respect to the States, refrained from the exercise of these powers, that they are now doubted.” The rule to show cause in this case is discharged and the habeas corpus denied.