Rensselaer Republican, Volume 16, Number 27, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 March 1884 — LEGAL. [ARTICLE]

LEGAL.

Important Decisions by the SuSupreme Court of the United States. : The Issue of Legal Tender Notes Again Declared Constitutional by That Tribunal. A Habeas Corpus Denied in the Celebrated Georgia Ko-Klnx Cases. A decision has just been rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States in the longpending legal-tender case of Augustus D. Juillard vs. Thomas S. Greenman, brought before it by * writ pf error in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The question presented by the case, as elated by the court, is: "Whether the notes of the United St itea, issued in time of war under an act of Congress declaring them to be legal tender in payment of private debts, and afterward in peace redeemed and paid for in gold coin a* the Treasury, and then reissued under the act of 1878, can, under the Constitution of the United States, be a legal tender in payment of such debts.” The court is unanimously of the opinion that the present case cannot be distinguished in principle from the cases heretofore decided and reported under the names of “legal-tender cases," and all the Justices except Justice Field, who adheres to the views expressed in the dissenting opinions in those case*, are of the opinion that they were rightly decided. The court holds, therefore, that Congress ~~had power to Issue obligations of the United States in such form, and to Impress upon them such qualities as currency for the purchase of merchandise and the jjayment of debts in accord with the nsages of sovereign government. The power (as incident to the power of borrowing money and issuing bills and notes of the Goverment for money borrowed! of impressing upon those bills or notes the quality of being legal tender 1 for the payment of private debts was a power universally understood to belong to sovereignly in Europe and America at the time of the framing and the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. Tills power of making notes of the United States legal tender in payment of private debts, being included in the power to borrow ..money and to provide a national onrrency. is not defeated or restricted by the fact that its exercise may affect the value qf private contracts. If, upon a just and fair interpretation of the whole Constitution, a particular power or authority appears to be rested in Congress, it is no constitutional objection to the existence or to its exercise that the property ° r contracts of individuals may be incidentally needed. "Congress," the court says In conclusion, “as the Legislature of a sovereign nation, being expressly empowered by the Constitution to lay and collect taxes, to pay debts, and to provide lor the common defense and general welfare of the United States, and to borrow .money on the credit of the United States, and to coin money and regulate the ralne thereof, and of foreign coin, and being clearly authorized, as incidental to the exercise of these great powers, to issue bills of credit, to charter national banks and to provide a [national currency for the whole people in the form of coin. Treasury notes, and national bank bills, and the power to make the notes of the Government a legal tender in payment of private debts being one of the powers belonging to the sovereigns in other civilized nations, and not expressly withheld from Congress by the Constitution, we are irresistibly imjieUed 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 tho United States. Such being our conclusion in the matter of the law question, whether at any particular time in war or peace the exigency is such, by reason of unusual and pressing demands on the 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 lie afterward passed npon by the courts. It follows that the act es May 3i, 1878, is, constitutional and valid, and that the Circuit Court rightly held that the tender in Treasurv notes reissued and kept in circulation under that act was a tender of lawful money in payment of defendant's debt to the plaintiff.” The judgment of the Circuit Court Is affirmed.

THE FTVE-PFK-CENT. LAND CASES.

A decision was aho rendered by the court in what are generally known as the 5-per-cent land case* —viz.: The State of lowa and State of Illinois agiinst 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 pnblic lands lying within their limits which should be sold by Congress. The question presented by the cases Is whether er not pnblic lands located by the military bounty land-warrants come within the scope of the setg, above mentioned — that is, whether such lands are "lands sold by Congress.” 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 ti e 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 tho State, the State is not entitled to a percentage on the value of lands disposed ot by Congress in satisfaction of military land-war-rants. The writs of mandamus prayed for are therefore remsed and the petitions dismissed. THE KU-KLUX CASES. A decision was also rendered in what are known as the Ktt-Kltix.«ssea, which stand on the original docket under the title, "Ex parte, in the matter of Jasper Yarborough and others," They are petitions tor writs ot habeas corpus to release a number of persons now imprisqned 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 deciding that the offense set forth in the indictment is fully covered by Secs. 5508 and 6520, Revised Statutes,"says; Th it 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, ha* no power and no appropriate laws to secure this election from the influence ot violence, corruption, and fraud is a proposition, so startling as to arrest attention aim 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 uyjho General Government, it must have power to protect an election, on which its existence depends, from violence and corruption. If tt has not this power, it is left helpless before two great natural and historical enemies of all republics—open violence and inaiuions corruption." He asks, if it be not doubted that Congress has powers to provide laws for the proper conduct of elections for Representatives in Congress, Are suen 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 cnlv because the Congress of tue United States, tnrongh long habit and long years of forbearance. has, in deference and respect to the States, retrained from the exercise of these powers, that they are now doubted." The rule to show cause in this cane is discharged and the habeas corpus denied.