Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

notes must be available to fulfill all contracts (not expressly excepted) solvable in money without reference to the time when the contract was made.

1

"The consequences of which we have spoken, serious as they are, must be accepted if there is a clear incompatibility between the Constitution and the Legal Tender Acts. But we are unwilling to precipitate them upon the country unless such an incompatibility plainly appears.

"And it is of importance to observe that Congress has often exercised without question powers that are not expressly given nor ancillary to any single enumerated power. Powers thus exercised are what are called by Judge Story, in his commentaries on the Constitution, resulting powers arising from the aggregate powers of the Government. He instances the right to sue and make contracts; many others might be given. The oath required by law from the officers of the Government is one. So is building a capitol or a presidential mansion, and so also is the penal code.

"We are not aware of anything else which has been advanced in support of the proposition that the Legal Tender Acts were. forbidden by either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution. If, therefore, they were, what we have endeavored to show, appropriate means for legitimate ends, they were not transgressive of the authority vested in Congress.

"But without extending our remarks further, it will be seen that we hold the Acts of Congress constitutional as applied to contracts made either before or after their passage."

In Julliard v. Greenbaum the right of Congress to make paper currency a legal tender was again upheld. The decision in this case is, however, much more decided and is placed on much broader ground; there is no attempt to excuse the exercise of this power as a war measure or on the ground of expediency; the right is asserted to rest in Congress positively and at all times. The concluding paragraphs in this decision are as follows:

"Congress, as the legislature of a sovereign nation, being expressly empowered by the Constitution to 'lay and collect taxes, 47110 U. S. 421; decided in 1884.

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,' to 'borrow money on the credit of the United States,' and 'to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin,' and being clearly authorized, as incidental to the exercise of these great powers, to emit 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 notes of the Government a legal tender payment of private debts being one of the powers belonging to the sovereignty in other civilized nations, and not expressly withheld from Congress by the Constitution; 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, conductive and plainly adapted to the execution of the undoubted powers of Congress, consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and therefore, within the meaning of that instrument, necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.

"Such being our conclusion in matter of law, the question whether at any particular time, in war or in 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 the use of the Government and of the people, that it is, as matter of fact, wise and expedient to resort to this means, is a political question, to be determined by Congress, when the question to be afterwards passed upon by the Courts. To quote once more from the judgment in McCulloch v. Maryland: 'Where the law is not prohibited, and is really calculated to effect any one of the objects intrusted to the Government, to undertake here, to inquire into the degree of its necessity would be to pass the line which circumscribes the judicial department, and to tread on legislative ground.' 4 Wheat., 423.

"It follows that the Act of May 31, 1878, c. 146, is constitutional and valid; and that the Circuit Court rightly held that in treasury notes reissued and kept in circulation, under that

Act, tender of lawful money in payment of the defendant's debt was a debt to the plaintiff."

This question is noteworthy as being probably the only question which the Supreme Court has decided three different ways. § 143. The power to regulate commerce. The power of Congress to regulate commerce will be treated in Chapter XII.

§ 144. Naturalization.-Clause 4: (The Congress shall have power) "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States."

Naturalization is the conferring upon an alien of all the rights of citizenship, upon his foreswearing his allegiance to his former country, and assuming all the duties and responsibilities incident to the new citizenship. Naturalization is a recent institution. Under the English Common Law no foreigner could attain to the right of an English citizen; a foreigner could be made a denizen, which gave him certain qualified rights of citizenship only by special act of Parliament.48 The difficulties put in the way of naturalization of new citizens by the Colonies, by George III., was one of the grievances complained of in the Declaration of Independence.*9

The power of Naturalization is one of general interest to the whole United States and as such its regulation is surrendered by the States to the central government. The question early arose whether this control by Congress was exclusive or concurrent with that of the States. In the first case which came before it, that of Collet v. Collet,50 in 1792, the Supreme Court held the power to be concurrent. This ruie, however, prevailed but a short time, being overruled five years later in the case of United States v. Villate,51 and Chirac v. Chirac.52 In this latter case the court held: "That the power of Naturalization is exclusively in Congress does not seem to be, and certainly ought not

[blocks in formation]

to be controverted." In a later cases Chief Justice Taney, commenting on the decision just quoted, said: "For the law of the United States (i. e., on the subject of naturalization) covered every part of the Union and there could not, therefore, by possibility be a State law which did not come in conflict with it. And, indeed, in this case it might well have been doubted whether the grant in the Constitution itself did not abrogate the power of the State, inasmuch as the Constitution also provided that the citizens of each State should be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and it would seem to be hardly consistent with this provision to allow any one State, after the adoption of the Constitution, to exercise a power which, if it operated at all, must operate beyond the territory of the State, and compel other States to acknowledge as citizens those whom it might not be willing to receive." A still stronger decision in support of the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress over the subject of naturalization was rendered in a later case by the same judge: "The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this Court to be so. Consequently, no State since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien, invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character." 9954

This last decision means that a State can confer any of the civil or political rights or privileges, belonging to the citizens of the State as such, upon an alien, without making him a citizen either of the State or of the United States. A State can confer the power of voting, even for members of Congress, or for Presidential electors, upon an alien, citizenship and the right to vote are neither identical nor inseparable.55

The License Cases, 5 Howard, 385, 504.

393.

Scott v. Sandford, 19 Howard,

55 Lang v. Randall, 4 Dill. 425.

The effect of naturalization is to make the person naturalized a citizen of the United States and a member of society possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is prescribing a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the rights of the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, he is distinguished in nothing from a native citizen except in so far as the Constitution makes the distinction." The admission of a new State on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever, involves the adoption as citizens of the United States of those whom Congress makes members of the new political community, and who are recognized as such in the formation of the new State with the consent of Congress.57

The required uniformity in the Acts of Congress relative to naturalization applies to their uniform application throughout the United States and not to any required uniform treatment of candidates for naturalization. It is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself and according to its own constitution and laws what classes of persons shall be entitled to citizenship.58 This power is limited, however, in the United States, in respect to persons born in the United States, by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.59

Indian tribes have always been treated and recognized as independent and foreign nations, notwithstanding the country they inhabit is incorporated into, and forms part of, the territory of the United States. They may, like citizens of foreign countries, be naturalized by Act of Congress and become citizens of the United States.60

$145. Bankruptcy laws.-The power to pass laws on the subject of bankruptcy was one of those powers which was

56 Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheaton, 738.

57

135.

Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S.

58 United States v. Wong Kim, Ark., 169 U. S. 649.

59 See Chapter XII.

60 Scott v. Sanford, 19 Howard, 393.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »