Pennsylvania, alarmed at the novel situation, passed an act forbidding all persons bringing suits to recover debts for two years, because of the scarcity of specie. The first attempt in March, 1780, to suspend the operation of the legal tender laws, so far as they related to the continental currency, failed; but two months later a bill was passed depriving these paper issues of their legal tender quality. In June, the same year, the Assembly declared, “that from time to time all contracts should be made good according to the special nature of each." The question had not reached a final solution. The state issued more paper money, which at first every one was free to take at his own valuation; not long afterward, however, by a special act, this new issue was declared to possess a legal tender function. Legislation on the subject grew bitter, but finally in June, 1781, all the legal tender laws were repealed.

We have not space to trace minutely the action of every state dealing with the repeal of the legal tender laws in accordance with the recommendation of Congress. As soon as the voice of Congress was heard in South Carolina, Governor Rutledge issued a proclamation forbidding creditors suing for the recovery of their debts until the meeting of the legislature. In his message addressed to that body he remarked with reference to this subject, "You will now consider whether it may be proper to repeal those laws, and fix some equitable mode for the discharge of debts contracted whilst paper money was in circulation." This view prevailed throughout the states, and in a more or less perfect form was embodied in their legislation.

A somewhat singular effect of the repeal of the legal tender laws was experienced in collecting fines imposed under enactments passed at various times prior to the repeal of the legal tender legislation. As the specie standard was now restored, it was necessary to collect fines in specie, but it was manifestly unjust to collect a fine in specie for the written amount when the legislators at the time of imposing the fine supposed the collection of it would be made in paper at an enormous depreciation compared with gold and silver. Governor Rutledge wrestled with this vexatious question in a proclamation, while, doubtless, the judiciaries of other states were perplexed with the same question. Of course, it was easy enough to amend the statutes with reference to future fines,

but it was very difficult to deal with those which had been incurred before legislation could render any relief.

Congress, like the states, established a scale of depreciation of paper money, by which all contracts were settled made by the officials of the general government during the time legal tender laws were in operation. It was necessary to pass numerous special acts upon the subject, and the journal for a considerable period abounds with the records of the acts of Congress in a great variety of cases which it was quite impossible to cover by any general regulation.

Such were some of the chief consequences flowing from the enactment as well as the repeal of the legal tender laws. Their enactment proved a benefit to the debtor and the working classes, creditors of every description were injured or ruined, while the foundations of morality were sadly undermined. In repealing these regulations, the states sought to do justice to all who had incurred obligations while the currency was depreciated, and labored honestly and effectually to that end. In making paper money a legal tender, neither Congress nor the states designed to perpetuate the ill effects which followed. Until the year 1780, it was believed by Congress and the people generally, that the whole paper flood would improve in quality until it was worth as much in specie as it purported to be. They were established," said the Freeman's Journal in 1782, in reviewing their history in Pennsylvania, "with the approbation of every one who wished to be considered as devoted to independence and liberty, and whatever may be said against the enforced tender of this sort of money, yet to these tender laws, under God, must the political salvation of the country in the years 1776, 1777 and 1778 be ascribed."

When the present constitution was framed, its authors, fresh with the recollection of the terrible losses and iniquities which had sprung from the legal tender laws, endeavored to guard as strongly as possible against the perpetration of so grave an injustice in the future; but within a hundred years the barriers set up in the constitution have been broken down and the deed sanctioned, not on the ground of a necessity greater than the preservation of the constitution itself—-a defence which many would have regarded as justifiable, but upon the ground forsooth that the act was indeed within the meaning of the organic law, while, if read in the light of history, especially the debate thereon at the time of its creation,

nothing can be clearer than that the framers of that marvellous instrument meant and said just the opposite to that which the Supreme Court of the United States affirm they said and intended.

A. S. BOLLES.

I

THE BOAT RACE ON THE SCHUYLKILL.

AST summer we threw up our hats when the Columbia College crew won the boat race in the Thames. We can, therefore, with a good conscience rejoice in the victory won by our own college boys in defeating Columbia and Princeton in our own waters. Of course, nothing that happens this summer detracts in the least from Columbia's glories of a year ago. The crew is not the same, and the New York college retains the honor of having had perhaps the very ablest boat crew that any American college has ever produced.

The Pennsylvania crew won the race under every sort of discouragement. Public opinion was against their chances. Our newspapers kindly told them on the very morning of the race that they had none of the excellencies of a good crew, that they did their work mechanically and without life. The betting was heavily in favor of Columbia; and even Princeton, whose crew have to practice in an old canal, was thought to have as good a chance. The effect of this on the spirits of the Pennsylvania crew may be imagined. We have reason to believe that they went into the race in a desperate mood, with the stolid determination to do their poor best, and take what luck might come.

They had reason to fear the result. Not only had the Columbia crew been trained under the system which did such wonders last year, but they were older and heavier men. They had more work in them, and, as an experienced judge said, “they ought to have towed our boys down the river, but they did not."

From the word "go" to the winning-post, the Pennsylvania crew held the lead, by force of sheer skill and perfection of discipline. They rowed together, with the regularity of clock-work, as did neither of the opposing crews. Princeton fell hopelessly behind almost at the beginning. Dr. McCosh will have to buy and widen

that old canal before his boys have a fair chance in such races. Columbia's second was sometimes wide, sometimes close. Instead of good, steady rowing, they seemed to depend on irregular spurting, which at times reduced their distance, but never gave them the lead. At the close they made a tremendous effort, but the Pennsylvania crew spurted at the same time and with equal effect, and were declared the winners.

Of course, no pains have been spared to discount the victory. The New Yorkers who had to borrow enough to take them home, after they had paid their bets on Columbia, have our sympathy. Betting is wrong and wicked, but if a man must stoop to such childish folly, we like to see him back his own side. But the farseeing Philadelphians, who were above all local prejudices, who were sure nothing good could come out of our University of Pennsylvania, who offered heavy odds against Pennsylvania, were deservedly bitten. The Scotch have a blessing for all such people, "May the Deil dry their eyes wi a whin bush!"

We are now told that the Columbia lost the race because their boat was steered out of its course in a curve. This is true, but equally true of the rival crew. Both captains lost their heads a little near the end of the course, and their time would have been better if they had not. But it is impossible to say which of the two lost the more by it.

It is also said that if the race had been for an additional quarter of a mile the Columbia would have won. Possibly! but it was not. They were challenged to a test of strength, skill and endurance for one mile and a half; nothing less, nothing more. They had the whole of that mile and a half to pass their rivals, and they did not do it. Had the race been for ten miles, or five, or even two, they certainly would have won. Men of their strength and age could not but have won. But in the actual test they failed.

It has even been insinuated that the Pennsylvania crew gave themselves to the betting men by making such a poor record in the races of the Schuylkill Regatta. It is true that they did do but poorly in that instance, but, as was well known at the time, it was through an accident. And anyone who cared to know their record, must have known that they had made much better time on other occasions than they made in this race. They are, one and all, men of such standing in every respect as forbids the thought of

their stooping to any such base collusion. These insinuations show how deeply somebody has been burnt.

Let us add that no contest has ever been lost and won with more uniform and unfailing courtesy on all hands among the competitors. The New York and New Jersey crews carry home the good wishes of all. And the course was free from all those collisions of temper and outbursts of ill-feeling which have characterized some other college regattas. It was a contest of gentlemen with gentlemen.

We do not wonder at the treatment the crew received from some of our city papers. Reporters are too apt, on such occasions, to make their opinions the reflection of those of what are called "the betting fraternity." Having no special means of knowledge, they very naturally have recourse to those who make the loudest pretensions to such knowledge, and who give the tangible evidence of the sincerity of their claim by risking their money. And then, having once committed themselves to the favorite side, they find it awkward to retreat without justifying their earlier utterances.

It is, however, true that the newspaper press of this city is not friendly to the University. Very few of our graduates become editors. We can mention three other colleges more largely represented in that field in this city, while, beyond all the colleges, the half-baked graduates of our City High School are speedily promoted to the editorial chair. Some of these make exceedingly good workmen after a while, but they are naturally indisposed to say anything good of the University. This fact comes out at Commencement time, when column upon column is given in our daily papers to Princeton, Lehigh and Lafayette, and only the most meagre report is made of the exercises and proceedings of the University of the city. H. F. P.

M

JOAQUIN MILLER'S "SONGS OF ITALY."

R. MILLER is of the subjective poets, and a very lurid one at that. His vocabulary blazes with revenge, despair, hate and hell. If these and similar words were taken out of his verses, we should be surprised to find how little sense would be left. There are conspicuous mannerisms and pet forms, like the constant and