| Show THE RIGHT TO DIFFER THE legal tender decision recently rendered by the supreme court of the united states continues to ell eli elicit cit adverse criticism from the legal fraternity and from the press 1 members of congress also aiso loin join inthe in the wide widespread spread condemnation of the ruling and according cordin to the logic of antl anti mormon papers treasonable utterances have become astonishingly common among people moving in the highest In intellectual and official circles for if it is rebellion and treason when a I 1 2 mormon normon I 1 argues against a supreme court decision the violent criticism and scathing comments of bar and p press ress against this recent ruling are equally tua hua y rebellious and treasonable a 1 J judge buckner of missouri chairman of the banking and currency committee in reply to the question from a new york herald representative what do you think ol of the legal tender decision replied ill iam lam am inot hot only surprised but astounded toun ded the conclusion of the court is not more astonishing than the reasoning by which it is reached it seems to proceed upon the idea that if inasmuch as the constitution does not in terms prohibit the making of the obligation of the united states a legal tender in discharge of private dents the power rower exists in congress to authorize the payment of the debt in chips or whetstones whet stones but the prohibition in the constitution Is against the only authority in the united states that has jurisdiction over contracts that J is the states they alone alon e have jurisdiction over all contracts between individuals and what is a tender and how and when it shall be made to discharge a contract or debt belongs under our system of government to the states alone tender is an incident if not a part of the law of contracts when the states were prohibited from passing laws making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts it necessarily prohibited congress from doing so because congress had no jurisdiction is diction n over the subject of co contracts this opinion is centralization run mad and if it is to stand it will be d difficult biffl it to find a subject of states jurisdiction which cannot come within the j jurisdiction ot of congressional legislation un less there happens to be in the conati tion an absolute prohibition as against the federal government I 1 after describing the probable eff effects acts of df thede the decision cislon which he co considered would be very disastrous judge buckner said 1 I have no idea that one in ten of th constitutional lawyers of the country will accept it as a correct interpretation of the constitution it is a reproach to the memory of the fathers of the constitution to suppose that they should have given congress con bress gress such despotic power over the contracts eo and fortunes of individuals after alter what they had seen of its baleful effects as exercised by tile the states durin during the revolutionary war and during the existence of the articles 0 of f confederation it is full of future peril to the prosperity of the country and of hope to the demagogue go ue ls representative P V Dc deuster uster j of wisconsin on being questioned said the decision seems to me to be arbitrarily in the extreme and a perusal of it seems to my mind to lead through a labyrinth of words to a conclusion totally at variance with the decision casion of the court the herald writer speaking of the estimate of the ruling 1 among the legislators 11 of the land says the legal tender decision creates more and more amazement as its bearing is considered by members of congress and if the supreme court judges who united in it could hear tile the oila opinions n expressed by able lawyers in both houses concerning not merely their conclusion but the methods by which they reached it they would not feel flattered 11 all this sustains the position we have taken on the right of the people to differ with the supreme court and to criticize its rulings and as much as any other department of the national government we have not disputed the fact that while such rulings stand they are the end oi of controversy for legal purposes but we contend that as questions of right and reason and logic they are open to debate and are legitimate subject for any ones criticism we have frequently given our reasons for dis disputing the correctness of the decision of the supreme court in the celebrated reynolds case and have used similar expressions concerning co it to those of judge buckner in reference to the legal tender decision namely the conclusion of the court is nut more astonishing than the reasoning by which it is re 11 andallo and also aiso to that of congressman gressman n deuster that it seems to i lead through a labyrinth of words to fl a q conclusion totally at variance with the decision of the court the cons constitutional atu lawyers of the country it appears will not with but very few exceptions 14 accept it as a correct interpretation pre tation of the constitution that Is our position exactly in regard to the ruling in the reynolds case we look upon the constitution as the su preme law ol of the land and view the conclusion of the supreme court in the eynolds reynolds ll case as manifestly in opposition to the spirit letter and I 1 intent of that sacred instrument and the reasoning by which the court arrived at its conclusion as shallow illogical aud leading to a diametrically opposite conviction of mind we also claim the right to freely express this conviction by tongue and pen and resent as false and absurd the charge that in doing so we are uttering anything in the nature of rebellion or I 1 treason I 1 or sedition we do not dispute the right of the of ulcers af the law to proceed on the interpretation terp given by the supreme I 1 C coart court our tand and to take its ruling as final that is not the question the point in view i is that the court of 1 ast last re resort is not infallible for sor its rulings have been reversed and may be changed again and that therefore if for no other reason its ar arguments may be discussed an and its conclusions disputed and that the mormons cormons Mor mons have as good a rl right ht as any one else eise to disagree gr e with that court and expose its frailties of reasoning sonin and fal fai fallacies lacie lacle S of conclusion |
