did not regard the recommendation of the committee favorably, Mr. Blaine, the chairman, moved that the bill be recommitted and continued until the next session. This was done, and then the subject was pressed forward. After several delays he succeeded, on the 14th of February, in getting the House to act. The bonds recommended by the committee were not to be negotiable until after the 1st of July, 1887, "and then only upon the indorsement of the governor of the State." Mr. Delano, of Ohio, was opposed to the bill because other claims which had been presented first demanded the attention of the House, especially those of loyal persons in the loyal and disloyal States whose property had been taken for the use of the army. The question of paying these must be met; moreover, they created a demand on the government infinitely more potential than the claims of the States. Besides, a bounty bill, which demanded "consideration, perhaps, over any other measure," would take $250,000,000 from the treasury. He was "for the measure," but thought it could "bear postponement," and so did a large majority of the House. Thus the bill was safely entombed, nor has any archangel of Congress yet blown the trumpet of resurrection. L CHAPTER I. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LEGAL-TENDER LAW. THE constitutionality of the bill for issuing legal-tender notes was questioned from the beginning. Notwithstanding the declaration of many members of Congress that they would not favor the extension of the principal, $450,000,000 of legal-tender notes were authorized, beside $400,000,000 of one and two year notes, bearing not more than six per cent interest in currency, and $400,000,000 of three-year notes-an aggregate of $1,250,000,000. There is no reason to think, said Mr. Chase, after he assumed the judicial office, that the utility of the interest-bearing notes was increased or diminished by making them a legal tender for their face amount. That they never entered largely or permanently into circulation, a statement also made by him, is partly true, for they did not live long, yet while they did, many millions were circulated. 'The Acts under which legal-tender notes were issued may be thus summarized: February 25, 1862 July 11, 1862 $150,000,000 150,000,000 January 17, and March 17, 1863 150,000,000 March 3, 1863, six-per-cent interest-bearing notes, running not longer than two years 400,000,000 June 30, 1864, and January 28, 1865, 7.3 per-cent interest bearing notes, running for three years or longer 400,000,000 See statement of indebtedness in Appendix of any Annual Finance Report for several years after the war; also, Knox's United-States Notes, chap. ix. Throughout the war, and afterward, the constitutional doubt hanging over them affected their value. This doubt was used as an argument against the national banking system, for it was proposed to redeem the notes of the banks in those issued by the government. If the law authorizing their issue should be declared unconstitutional, in what jeopardy would the banks be put! On the other hand, their issue was regarded as temporary, and their disappearance certain, as soon as the war closed, by conversion into bonds. Had this expectation been fulfilled, the supreme court would have had no occasion for making a series of legal-tender decisions, which caused more commingled joy and regret than any decision, except that against Dred Scot, ever made by that tribunal. The first decision concerning the constitutionality of the legaltender law was made by the Supreme Court of New York in April, 1863.1 The court sustained the law on the ground of necessity. We know of no opinion subsequently written containing better reasoning for sustaining the law. "For the purpose of carrying on the war in which our people are engaged, the government may lawfully seize and appropriate the property of any citizen for the public use. The sovereign power of the State may do whatever is necessary for the safety and defence of the State. The only limit to its power under our constitution is, that the means be, in the opinion of Congress, necessary and proper to accomplish the end in view in the exercise of any of the enumerated powers of government. If the government may seize and appropriate the property of the citizens without limit, to carry on the war, and for the common defence, certainly it may take it by means of forced loans. All governments in times of war have been 1Hague vs. Powers, 39 Barbour, p. 427. |