Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1866-01-04

principles Of universal justice. But the law
may be valid, though not necessarily retro
spectiye, so as to embrace and apply to ante
cedent contracts.
Then, the authorities invoked by the Court
are lamcntably out Of point.
The Kentucky case (Colc vs.. Ross, y Is
Munro, $685. was an action upon q covenant
to deliver good m~erchantablc pig metal, at
twenty-nine dollars per ton, to n stipulated
amount, when the commodity, by the terms
Of the contract, was to be delivered, the metal
advanced considerably in price. The defend
ant rendered the stipulated amount at the
rate Of twcnty-nine dollars per ton, when it
was worth much more. The Court held 1t
was ga contract for pig metal and not for
money"
or course, n tender of the amount at the
stipulated price OF twc%nty-nine dollars per
ton, when its value had been greatly en-
HANGED by the time the contract was to be
discharged, would not meet the terms OF the
obligation. In such cases the doctrine is
settled, that the measure Of damages is the
value Of the property ut the time OF the
breach, and that amount not having been
rendered, the defendants liability still exist
cd. We find no fault with this doctrine, but
fail to discover any analogy between that and
the case under consideration. The case from
Indiana we think less german to the ques-
ton, il possible.
We have therefore come to the conclusion
that the Act Of the Legislature. approved
January 4th, 1865, does not embrace con-
tracts entered into before it went into effect,
and is prospective, only, in its operations.
II. We proceed to the consideration Of the
second question. Does the Act Of the Legis-
laturc passed January 4th, 1865, conflict with
the legislation of Congress, which declares
the issues Of the United States notes to be n
legal tender, ut their face, in payment OF
debtsi
The first Act giving the character Of legal
tender to these notes, is that Of February
25th, 1862. Subsequent statutes contain the
same phraseology on this subject. After de-
claring them payable i'll all transactions to
and from the Government, except customs,
dues and interest on the public debt, the Act
provides, "and shall also be lawful money
and II legal tender in payment Of all debts,
public and private, within the United States,
except duties on imports and interest as
aforesaid" (l2 Statutes Mt large, 345.)
In the case Of Maynard W.. Newman, this
| Court adjudgcd the constitutionality and
validity OF this law. Being valid, it is SUI.
preme. The Constitution Of the United
| states 81 ucCluIcS III cNllCSo dlu pOoitihS
terms. "This Constitution, and the laws Of
| the United States which shall be made in
| pursuance thereof, etc., etc, shall be the SUI
| prcme law Of tho land, and the Judges OF
every State shall be bound thereby, and nny-
| thing in the Constitution or laws Of any State
to the contrary neutrality-suspicious.
ton US, Art. VI, Sec. :.
Having held the Act Of Congress valid, we
cannot fail to perceive a rcpugnancy between
it and the Act of the Legislature, and consc-
~uucntly the latter must ~fall-yield. The one
applies to all debts, public and private (othcr
| than those specifically exccptcd), and pro.
yidcs that they may be paid and discharged
BY legal tender notes. The State law en-
braces debts, not within the excepted cases
and in effect aims at ENGRAVING other cxcep'
tions upon the Act. Of Congress. 1t is max.
ing the Act to read except duties on i'm
ports, interest on public debt and n class Of
| debts payable IN gold coin. This will not an
swcr. II the Legislature has the power tc
make this exception it can make other ex'
ceptions, and thereby emasculate the law o
Congress so as to render it practically incf
f%ectual.
The demand for which this action WAS in
stituted is a DEBT, rs designated i'll the Act o.
Congress, liable to be liquidatcd and can
ccllcd by payment Of legal tender notes Al
their face value. 1t makes no difference IL
the eve Of the law that the contract calls fol
payment in gold coin, the legal character o
the demand, and the force and effect Of thu
law Of Congress still remains impressed upon
it. Can u State law withdraw it from thu
operation Of the paramount law: 1t is .
debt, which in virtue Of the express mandat,
Of the supreme law, may be paid i'll those
;ssuos which that law itsrlf called into exist.
ence.
But it is said this statute is merely rene
dial, and that the remedy is strictly just and
equitable.
Admitting all this and conceding as we do
that every principle OF honor and honesty de-
mands that the debtor should discharge his
engagements to the letter, still the position
we take remains unaffected. As between the
parties, it would be strictly equitable and just
to compel the performance Of the contract
according to its express terms, but in the
teeth Of the legislation Of Congress the Court
has not the power, and we cannot exercise
jurisdiction in the domain Of ethics, however
ANONYMOUSLY Il debtor may act in refusing
to observe n sacred regard for his obligations.
The stubborn overcoming question is, does
this Act conflict with the law Of Congress? II
it does, no matter how remedial or equitable
4 IL IluV Utt I NOIu ulll NAoNIlN"A w
fore the majesty Of the higher law. Was the
debt in question within the provisions Of the
Act of Congress? Yes. Was it Of either
class exempted by the terms of that Act
Clearly not. But what power or authority
then, can the Legislature Of a State cxemp,
or disenthral it from the embrace and opera.
ton OF the national cdict? This Act is in
~derogation of the Act OF Congress. All such
laws stand in direct and brazen antagOnism
to the policy Of the nation, and, practically
extended through several States, during the
rayless period OF the nations travail, would
inhict a wound upon constitutional liberty
which the coming ages would not see healed,
Such laws, in the face Of the action Of the
Congress of the United States, assert tina,
most abused, because lily understood, doc.
trine Of State rights in its most odious ant
intolcrant aspect.
We are told that two kinds Of currency
exist, and that both are different in intrinsic
value. Granted as n fact yet in the eye and
judgment Of the law, for the purpose Of dis
charging debts not excepted in the Act o
Congress, they are identical, rather equiva'
lent.
BY positive law a legal equality is estab'
lished between the metallic coinage and the
paper currency OF the Government, and ]
| lOlQ tnhL JuttCtuG luqulIJ u " uu'hiSsioLS y
make any distinction between them where
the debt or obligation is expressed in Fedora
money or currency. Casuists may attempt
to discriminate but their logic will limp and
halt.
Government has the power to reduce the
weight or debase the fineness Of its metallic
currency, yet debts contracted, while the
standard Of weight is, say, 100 grains TO the
dollar, may be discharged by the new coin
though decreased in intrinsic value to q
standard below 100; we presume this will moi
be denied. Indeed, such fact is part Of the
history Of our Government. Yet we have
heard no complaints on that ground. We
have not read Of any objection to the exercise
Of the power.
The first silver dollars coined in 1874
weighed each 4l6 grains; in 1887 the stand
ard weight Of tho silver dollar was reduced tc
4l21 grains.
In 1884 the weight Of fine gold to the dol.
lar was reduced, and in 1887 the standard Of
weight wal insignifcantly advanced to tho
point at which, we think, it now stands. viz
q nominal fraction over % grains.
Take an illustration: A borrows from T
one thousand dollars in gold, and agrees &c
pay it in one year, gold coin alone being cur
rent, legal tender, the standard weight OF the
gold dollar at the time Of the contract beinl
fixed by law ut 25 grains, but before the day
L. Il