New-York daily tribune., 1863-10-28
OPIN ION S
OPIN1O N s
DELIVERED BY THE
JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS,
ON TIE
Conal,uliOnality Of the Act Of Congress-
DECLARING
TREASURY NOTES a LEGAL TENDER
FOR THIS
PAYMENT OF OEETS
PAYMENT OF OEETS.

spondents sg, Henry H. Ven Dyck Superintendent: Of /
the Bank Department, Appellant
Lewis II Meyer, Appellant agt James l. Roosevelt, Re
spondent
These causes, involving the validity Of the
act Of Congress declaring Treasury Notes legal ten
der in payment of al debts argued together in
the Court Appeals at the June term, 1868 by Messrs
Porter aud Tremain counsel for the plaintiffs in the
Hrst above entitled action and by Messrs Curtis and
Doty for defendants and by Mcsrs Noyes and Rocker
for plaintiff the second above entitled action. and by
Mr. Curtis for defendant AT tho opening of the Court al
the September term 1863 judgments pronounced in
both cases declaring the validity Of the act of Congress
all the judges concurring except Denio aud Selden
The following are the opinions delivered;
OPINION OF JUDGE DAVIES.
DAVIS 1.-THE respondents il the first a1ove entitled
cause are banking associations organized under the een
eral banking law Of the State Of New York and the sew
srai ae's al % T ~ XawvorS Nv The n-oy;sor
Of those acts the said banks required TO deposit
eurites with the Bank Department for tie redemption
and payment OF the bills circulating notes issued by
such banks respectively And upon any default OF any
such bank upon Lawful demand to pay any such note or
t N the ia,tal n0nty ef its Uaed SAFES" then the
holder Of such note authorized 20 the same 20
Re protested and the appellant the Superintendent OF
he Bank Department receiving such protect 10 di
reeted take the proceedings prescribed by sod act
to compel payment thereof ont Of the securities SO de
posted with him for thai purpose end need be 10 sell
The tSCc. or n0I OF itsc, chep -tU( On tlt
10th Of March. 1853 d. Vaoutne being the owner
and holder OF b or note issued by each Of the re-
,pondouts of the denomination Of $40 presented the
same al then several banks and demanded payment
thereof in te gold and silver coin of TIE United States
which refused by the respondents. but each ter
dered to him, and offered to pay tte said roe OF bn II
note Of the denomination Of SO issued BY the Secie
tary of the Treasury. upon tie credit q the United
States Gnder and by virtue Cf the act OF the congress Of
the Itcd States entitled An set to authorize tie
issue United States notes and for the redemption OF
funding thereof and ior 9Edn Tie ne"tlpg debt 81 IRE
the said Valentine caused the said rotes BE- protested
sr1 the protes: thereof be fled win Ire appellant
and that thererpon the appellant gave notice requiring
said espondents TO pay theirrcspcnve unes within
fifteen days IN gold or silver coin " III ce'ai Tie SAID
appellant would proceed 90 sci tAe sand securities so de-
posted with him. and also proceed 20 make redemption
hereof pursuant the requirements q said acts Upon
sn agreed case pursuant section 32 OF the Code Of
Procedure the following questions we're submitted to
the Supreme Court et General Term for decision
l. Whether the Aforesaid act ol Congress, approved
FEB. % lo62 Is constitutional ard N3hc g-d also
Whether the refusal OF tie plaintiffs 10 redeem their said
notes So issued by them upon demand IN te goa or
silver com Of the Untcs States and their ofcr 20 re-
eem their said notes In TIE notes OF equa Denomination
ssred Aforesaid. by authority 81 ConFre's. was .
failure refusal TO reJeem t.en notes n the LAW iul
money of tbs United States.
IL IL The Court Be o tie opinion q 90 Tho SAID act Is
constitutional and that plaintiffs offered 10 redeem ter
aOies the lawful muHey o the United states ther
inderf Is 10 be entered restraining tie defendant re
Superintendent frc taking any further steps, RON r..
1eemiHr Gny RI the noes cl tie paiis IN cases where
The plaintiffs ave of. re- % ee1 AL iLe lesA 'e4-
from taxing any steps to rG the sale oi TIE STOCKS or
funds in bis hands ieongns to these paintihs
But II The coutrary Tie Court DC Of tie opnion tha
the said act Of Concrefs y rhco lstituiioho ahu t'
refusal 70 redeem IN the go. silver CON ~ the Jneo
s.ates refusal ~ redeei tie lawful money o. the
United States then Judgment wos TO oe entered as
missing tie complaint Oi lie plaintiffs.
IL tbs action the - relle IOrIt Of The Third Ju'
iiea District held the sad of Courrcss % he con
,titutonai end valid AID that tender made in the
Treasury issued b. vItue ard 10 pgfstance OF ano
act was good ana legal tender fof Al debts lsrene
therein. end that the terccT inadc ny ihe Pahfs 70
edcen their circulating u TIE SAID above cescf Dd
rreasary notice. tender and oEer 10 redeem their
said Notes IN ne iaNlui mont! u 'nS o. ~. u, % n
yhe court thereupon gave 70 1ne p!ainils TIC ie'l
ssked for II their compliant
In he second above entitled the facts agree
upoD in the su5M;ild O. tis supreme Coru under
and in rQr uance Of the section % tie code were
hat the plaintiff Lewis u. Mcyc. had become thc own
in fee IL May ls5l O. certain premises sab - 70
mortgage 10 the defer deu 20 secure TIE SUN O -eVl
On The 23d Of Aut us ia cue samuel BOVINE tie
owner IN fee Of ead Ireses and procured loan IRON
the defendant OF the Of g CO., ard 20 secure the
psyneut Of which, the 80 of Augult lsJ' he MADE
and executed " the defendant Ia bond IN tie penal SUN
$4,000 lawful MONEY O. the United o,aies o Am,f
lcs" conditioned FOL ne payment OF tle lu't f-n inl
suIn OF g. 90 said ~ Oi August l-o with irefe5;
thereon al the rate If seven pei cent pay he senen
nusly To secure the ment Of said bond. The sac
Bovine and his wife made ard sxeclted 8 mort ,sge OF
said premises bearing even Gate win ssid bond wic1
,ecited that said BoSlc lsty INDEBTED 20 sad &c.
:endant the Of eight tLo1sand dollars lawful
uOney Of the United States of AIaerica Tue mort
gaged promises conveyed - TIE plaintiff. and lie
assumed peyineft O. fllG LtrtC0fe.
On the nth oi June ls the plaintiff desirine 20 p0y
o and cancel said mortgage rendered 10 The defendant
tie sum OF G. 40 being tle alouai due for principal
.nd interest on said mortgage up 70 me said lth OF
June lsG2 ia notes Of tie United states iss-od under
and BY virtue Of sad act u Congress approved Februa
" 25 s62 The defendant refused to receive tie same
. legal tender, and claimed that the fenoyront oi
raid money should be made IN gold coin Of tbe United
States Ii was thereupon agreed between The parties
fAat the defendant shOgd receive 3Ld he did receive
Tho sad su Of Ss l70 81 .ad notes oOndltOAay. ana
that the question. whether the sid notes OF the United
states are ana legal tender IA payment of faid
mortgage debt ard interest should be submitted 10 tie
supreme Court and ii sech court should decide that
said notes were and legal tender nd discharge of
said bond and mortgage, that then the sad defendant
tlOud deliver up said bond oDc mortgage and ackn0w
eigc satisfaction thereof aad discharge the same Of
record but II the court should decide that said notes
not and are not a iega tenCef IN payment
O. said mortgage debt that ten tie plaintiff aholld
pay 10 tho defendant the further sum of S3ZC a.
th interest thereon from Juno H. 1862 and tia: upon
payment OF said last mentioned sln, with interest tic
defendant b deliver up tne bond anl mortgage 70
be cenceed and acknowledge satisfaction thereof and
cancel the same OF record.
IN this last mentioned action the Supreme Com. of
Ge First Judicial District gave Judgment To- The de-
feudant end that the plaintiff should pay 70 the defend
tnt the additional frm q $50 y qua interest from
June H. 1907 and that payment oi tic same Tie de-
fsldant acknowledge satisfaction OF Celd boad and
rcgage and dschaTge the same of record and deliver
From the Judgment in tie fst above entitled action
tle defendant appeals TO this court and from tie Gdg
nen, IN the second tie paDt.h also appeals 10 tLis
| court.
lie question presented for our determination in these
teons Is one Of the graVest Importance and challenges
or most careful consideration We are called upon 20
trlg and set aside Of tie Congress Of the United
e.aes passed in conformity with the lorIos Of The funda
te1lal law after grave doberaton by both Houses Of
ongress and which has assumed the form OF law with
te approval Of the MecltYc Two Departments Of the
eoFefnihent nave therefore united and all which by Tie
9Visios OF the Constitution are required TO unite IN
&c cactinent u law The responsibility Of deternin