A Century of Federal Judicature.
379
457, on the legal tender question. "The Con pay, is one of the slightest forms in which stitution of the United States establishes a the necessary burdens of society can be sus government, and not a league, compact or tained. Instead of being a violation of such partnership. It was constituted by the peo obligation, it merely subjects it to one of those conditions under which it is held and ple. It is called a government. . . . The enjoyed." United States is not only a government, but it is a national government, and the only gov The great question involved in that con troversy is one on which intellects will always ernment in this country that has the charac ter of nationality. . . . Such being the differ. The power of the government to character of the general government, it seems protect and defend itself, and the right of the to be a self-evident proposition that it is in j individual to his property, are two funda vested with all those inherent and implied mental principles of constitutional law which powers which, at the time of adopting the here conflict. It has already been pointed out Constitution, were generally considered to that in such a conflict Justice Bradley seemed belong to every government as such, and as more alive to the necessities of the govern ment, while Justice Field was invariably on being- essential to the exercise of its func the side of individual rights. tions. If this proposition be not true, it cer tainly is true that the government of the In no respect did Justice Bradley carry his United States has express authority . . . national views so far as in the construction to make all such laws (usually regarded as of the commerce clause of the Constitution. inherent and implied) as may be necessary He was the moving spirit in establishing the and proper for carrying on the government Federal supremacy to which reference was as constituted, and vindicating its authority made in connection with Justice Field. It is and existence. . . . But it is said, why not only necessary to recall such leading cases as borrow money in the ordinary way? The Transportation Company v. Parkersburg, answer is, the legislative department, being 107 U. S. 702; Brown v. Houston, 114 ib. the nation itself, speaking by its representa 622; Walling v. Michigan, 116 ib. 406; Coe v. tives, has a choice of methods and is the Erroll, 116 ib. 517; Robbins v. Shelby master of its own discretion. ... In time County, I3O ib. 489, and Leloup v. Port of of war or public danger, Congress,, repre Mobile, 127 ib. 640, to appreciate his influ senting the sovereign power, by its right of ence on this great subject. The views which eminent domain, may authorize the Presi he enforced have been criticised as an ex dent to take private property for the public travagant judicial expansion of the constitu use and give government certificates there- tional provison, resulting in the suppression, fi-r. . . . Can the poor man's cattle, and to a great extent, of the police power of the States. It is said that while the court up horses, and cows, be thus taken by the gov ernment when the public exigency requires holds as a mere judicial theory the police it. and cannot the rich man's bonds and notes power of the States in the preservation of the be in like manner taken to reach the same lives, the health and the morals of the people, it nevertheless practically sacrifices this end? . . . There are times when the exi power of self-preservation to the power to gencies of the State rightly absorb all sub ordinate considerations of private interest, trade and barter. But Justice Bradley's view convenience or feeling; and at such times commended itself, in the main, to the major ity of his colleagues, and still prevails. He, the temporary though compulsory accept ance by a private creditor of the government at all events, dissented from all retrograde credit, in lieu of his debtor's obligation to steps (Pullman Palace Car Company v.
