The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1863-10-30

country in dignity and influence. has thor
.oughly investigated the conslitutionalty OF
legal tender notes. and decided in their IA
vor. The views and judgment Of the court
were given BY Judge Wright. at Albany. in
view Of two test cases submitted for that
purpose. These cases were intended to
cover the whole ground. and the decision
given will be fnal so far rs the State Of
New York j. concerned. sd will have i'm
mense weight with all other States. No
CONT save that of the United States, 10 full
bench, a. Washington. can reverse the de
cision. The tes, cases submitted wore as
follows:
YlRsr TEST CASE.
! In the frs. Of the above entitled c,se
the pla,ntiG'. thar are associs'ions organize
under the general bankIn. law of The STAT,
seyeraily refused. on demand of tnc h3lIe.
/ Thereof. to redeem one of their circulating
notes of the denomination of ten dollars
in g>d or silver coin of the United states,
but each rendered 10 such holders a treasu-
~ note VI lhe denomination OF tel collars
i issued under tho Authority Of the act O
/ February 25, 1862, as aul for Legal re
idsmplon and payment OF the circulating
notes respectively !ssuad b. them. The,
! bank notes were protested for non payment
: in gold or silver coin. and the notes and pro !
| test thereof filed in me Office Of tie Super
intenient Of the Banking Department, VII :
gave noice to the banks to pay the same
The general banking law makes il the dat,
of the Superintendent, in case Of defaul
Of 'he banks to redeem their circu' attn.
notes in lawful money of the United S stes.
to sell the stocks or trus; funds in his hand
belonging to the banks for their redemption
Apprehending that tho Superih tendeu
would take such proceeding, on the ground
that the plaintiff hal failed. upon lawful
demand. to redeem their cir rulstiug notes
in the lawful money Of the United States,
the Banks and the Superintendent. upon a
case agreed upon. submit to the court ths
questions. whether tho act OF Congress. ap-
proved February 25. 1862. is consti. .u:ional
and valid and, also, whether the refusal
OF the plaintiffs 10 redeem their notes on
demand. in the gold aud silver coin of ths
United States; aud their offer TO redeem
their notes in the notes Of equal denomins-
tions. issued. as aforesaid, by authority Of
Congress, was failure or refusal to re leem
their notes in the lawful money of the Uni.
ted States? Tue court was of the opinion
that the act was constitutional. and thas ths
plaintiffs offered to redeem their notes in
The lawful money Of the United States. then
Judgment was to be entered restraining tho
from taking any steps to-
wards redeeming any of the notes of the
plaintiffs in cases where they have offered
to redeem in the legal tender notes of the
U Uuited States. But if the court should be
Of the opinion that the act is unconstitution-
al, and that . refusal to redeem in the gold
or silver coin of tbs United States is .
fusai to redeem in the lawiul money of the
United States. then judgment WAS 70 be en-
tered dismis.ing the complaint.
SECOND TEST CASE.
The second case was also submitted The
facts were these In August. l864. the de-
fendsnt loaned to Samuel Bowen the sum
of $4,000, and Bowen executed and deliv-
cred t. him his bond conditi oned for the
payment thereof with interest. half yearly.
on the e3d of August. 1857. As a further
security, Bowen executed mortgage on
certain real estate in Richmond county On
making the loan TO Bowen. the defendant.
gave him his check for $4,000 on the
Chemical Bank in the city of New York.
psyabis in gold a. the option of Bowen.
The plaintiff in May, 1851. became the
owner in fee of the mortgased premises, and
assumed ths paTmeat Of the mortgage. In
June. 1862, being desirous OF paying aud
dischsrging the mortgage. he rendered to
the Defendant the sum Of s8.l7o being The
amount of principal and interest 10 notes
Of the United States. issued under the act
If February 25th, 1862 The defendant
refused the same as legal tender and claim
that the repay ment should be made ia gold
coin of the United States, as baiDg the
money in which the loan was made. L,
was then agreed that The defer dant should
receive the said sum of IS, 10 in United
States notes. coniitionaly, and the question
be submitted to court having jurisdiction
whether they are or we're legal tender in
ymeu, of the mortgage debt and interest.
If the court should decide that they were a
legal tender in payment and discharge of
the bond and mortgage. then the defend
ant Was 10 deliver mp the mortgage and
discharge the same OF record: bu. il the
court should decide thst the treasury notes
we're not a legal tender III payment of the
mortgage debt. then the plain'iff was to
pay to the defendant the further sum Of
S5el rs. being the difference between the
market value Of the notes aud gold coin Of
the u nited States on the 1ith Of June, 1862.
Upon these facts the single question sub
mitted was: Were the notes Of the United
States legal tender on the part OF the
plaintiff
Aftsr stating the above test cases. the
Judge pronounces the paramount gssssios
at ssss,e te be as follows: so s7
There are minor questions in each case
but the paramount one. common to and de-
cisivs Of both cases. is the power Of the
Congress of the UniteG States 10 enact she
lIav Of the 25kh February. 1859. That
, Get declared in terms that the notes issued
shooM b lawfsl money and . Legal tender
10 paynssas Of ell debts, public an4 private.
sexcsp, astjsE ON iaporss and interest oa
Unissd SsaRs securities. If Congvess could
ausheFiss The issue of the notes, with the
psoPsrtiss impssted to them BY the law, il
cOaskusivsiy dsAsrmines the Gases sgainss
the defendants. The obligation Of the
baHks was 10 redeem their circulating notes
in !" che lasfal noS~y Of the Unieed
tSeatesys. taud if the Uai,eds 1eaatss notes
we're sssh lawfal money. SD legal tender
10 payment and discharge ofssse morrs-
gees dsba, in she sseood essS. the upcrtrs.