326 



CONGKESS, U. S. 



differ in regard to a question of that importance 

 and of that character, it seems to me that those 

 t of us who choose to do so may exercise our 

 own judgments in regard to the constitution- 

 ality of the measure." 



Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, followed. He said : 

 " I agree that this measure can only be justified 

 on the ground of necessity. I do believe there 

 is a pressing necessity that these demand notes 

 should be made a legal tender if we want to 

 avoid the evils of a depreciated, dishonored 

 paper currency. I do believe we have the 

 constitutional power to pass such a provision, 

 and that the public safety now demands its ex- 

 ercise. Is there such a necessity?" 



Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, followed, say- 

 ing: "I had supposed, sir, that this question 

 could never enter the American Senate ; that the 

 day had gone by when it was open to discus- 

 sion, if it ever was open since the Constitution 

 was formed. Surely, if anything in the world 

 is settled settled by the fathers, by contem- 

 porary history, painful experience, and the 

 total absence of all precedent for the exercise 

 of these powers it is that they were not dele- 

 gated nor intended to be delegated. I have 

 never till now heard it doubted ; and after the 

 argument of the learned and venerable Senator 

 from Vermont, I think no one of us, looking 

 at it in the light of the oath he has taken, 

 could doubt it. If this is not settled, then is 

 nothing settled, and we are all at sea. 



"It may be superfluous, Mr. President, but 

 still I think proper to recur a moment to first 

 principles upon this question whether the 

 United States Government can make its notes 

 a legal tender in payment of debts and in so 

 doing, I think it will be found, if answered in 

 the affirmative, that the power would be sub- 

 versive of all our no'tions of government and 

 the ends for which it is established, which are 

 the protection and preservation of society." 



Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, followed in op- 

 position to the bill. He said : " I shall pass 

 over the constitutional argument. I really do 

 not think, from anything I ever heard on the 

 subject, that it is worth an argument. The 

 thing is to my mind so palpable a violation of the 

 Federal Constitution, that I doubt whether in 

 any court of justice in this country, having a 

 decent regard to its own respectability, you 

 can possibly^ expect that this bill which you 

 now pass will not, whenever the question is 

 presented judicially, receive its condemnation 

 as unconstitutional and void in this clause." 



Mr. Howard, of Michigan, on the other side 

 of the question, thus expressed his views : 

 "We have under the Constitution the power 

 to borrow money. This no one disputes. If 

 we have the power to borrow money, we have 

 the right ; and it is our duty to place in the 

 hand of the lender an evidence of the fact that 

 we have so borrowed it, and, further, that we 

 intend to pay what we have borrowed. These 

 two things are manifestly, in their very nature, 

 inseparable ; and the only real question, it 



seems to me, which addresses itself to the 

 Senate, is this : whether we have any power, 

 after having issued this description of paper to 

 the public creditors in payment of their debts, 

 to protect the credit of the United States ex- 

 pressed upon the face of the paper, while it is 

 in the hands of innocent and honest holders. 

 I think we have. I think this is one of the 

 most obvious means of extending protection to 

 the public credit thus expressed upon the 

 paper. If we have it not ; if we cannot sub- 

 ject, so to speak, the entire property of the 

 nation to something like an assistance to the 

 public credit, then this power to borrow money 

 at once ceases to be a power of any value, and 

 it is a mere mockery upon the face of the Con- 

 stitution. If we cannot declare that this paper 

 shall in commercial transactions be of equal 

 validity to transactions based upon gold and 

 silver, then I say that the power to borrow 

 money ceases in and of itself to be of any bene- 

 fit to the Government or to the nation ; and it 

 is because I believe that we have this power 

 thus to protect the public credit, expressed and 

 pledged on the face of a Treasury note, that I 

 shall vcte to retain this clause in the bill. I 

 think we have the consfitntional power, and I 

 am willing to use it on this occasion." 



Mr,. Sumner, of Massachusetts, argued that 

 the measure was not unconstitutional, saying: 

 "It is true that in the Constitution there are 

 no words expressly giving to Congress the 

 power to make Treasury notes a legal tender ; 

 but there are no words expressly giving to 

 Congress the power to issue Treasury notes. 

 If we consult the text of the Constitution, we 

 shall find it as silent with regard to one as 

 with regard to the other. But, on the other 

 hand, the States are expressly prohibited to 

 ' emit bills of credit, or make anything but gold 

 and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.' 

 Treasury notes are 'bills of credit;' and this 

 prohibition is imperative on the States. But 

 the inference is just that this prohibition, ex- 

 pressly addressed to the States, was not intend- 

 ed to embrace Congress indirectly, as it obvi- 

 ously does not embrace it directly. The 

 presence of the prohibition, however, shows 

 that the subject was in the minds of the 

 framers of the Constitution. If they failed to 

 extend it still further, it is reasonable to con- 

 clude that they left the whole subject in all its 

 bearings to the sound discretion of Congress, 

 under the ample powers intrusted to it. 



" If the Constitution failed to speak, Congress 

 has not failed ; and the exercise of this power 

 cannot now be questioned without unsettling 

 our whole financial system. But we have seen 

 that throughout our colonial history the legal 

 tender was a constant, though not inseparable, 

 incident to the bill of credit; that, indeed, it 

 was so much a part of the bill of credit that 

 the Imperial Parliament positively interfered 

 to separate the two, and, while sanctioning the 

 bill of credit, forbade the tender. And now, 

 if this historical review is properly apprehend- 





