And when, soon afterwards, the revolutionists of France dethroned the king then existing--the Legitimist king, so-called--and asserted the right of the people to choose their own government, these other governments carried on a twenty years' war against her, to reëstablish the principle of "sovereignty" by "Divine Right." And in this war, the government of England, although not itself claiming to exist by Divine Right,--but really existing by brute force,--furnished men and money without limit, to reëstablish that principle in France, and to maintain it wherever else, in Europe, it was endangered by the idea of popular rights. The principle, then, of "Sovereignty by Divine Right"--sustained by brute force--was the principle on which the governments of Europe then rested; and most of them rest on that principle today. And now the Supreme Court of the United States virtually says that our constitution intended to give to our government the same "sovereignty"--the same absolutism--the same supremacy over all the natural rights of the people--as was claimed and exercised by those "Divine Right" governments of Europe, a hundred years ago! That I may not be suspected of misrepresenting these men, I give some of their own words as follows: It is not doubted that the power to establish a standard of value, by which all other values may be measured, or, in other words, to determine what shall be lawful money and a legal tender, is in its nature, and of necessity, a governmental power. _It is in all countries exercised by the government._--_Hepburn vs. Griswold, 8 Wallace 615._ The court call a power, To make treasury notes a legal tender for the payment of _all_ debts [private as well as public] _a power confessedly possessed by every independent sovereignty other than the United States_.--_Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wallace, p. 529._ Also, in the same case, it speaks of: That general power over the currency, _which has always been an acknowledged attribute of sovereignty in every other civilized nation than our own_.--_p. 545._ In this same case, by way of asserting the power of congress to do any dishonest thing that any so-called "sovereign government" ever did, the court say: Has any one, in good faith, avowed his belief that even a law debasing the current coin, by increasing the alloy [and then making these debased coins a legal tender in payment of debts previously contracted], would be taking private property? It might be impolitic, and unjust, but could its constitutionality be doubted?--_p. 552._ In the same case, Bradley said: As a government, it [the government of the United States] was invested with _all the attributes of sovereignty_.--_p. 555._ Also he said: