The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1869-11-15
p;atlp argus.
Monday Evenin q, November Is, 1869.
EOW ARE DEBTS TO BE PAID 7

oil the Legal lepuer "sS A'' H. ;,,a |
paid is q question tha' ha'u'a"! go
much interest, and provokes no ilt''e eonJeo
tire. AS the whole population 81 the cou"'
try NAV, in one sense, be divided iu'o '"o
classes of debtors and creditors no one can |
he entirely Indifferent to the forthcoming |
decision.
Ia some remarks made last week on 'he
decision of the Supreme Court in the case o.
Harrington 50. Smith x Hartley, involving |
the value Of Confederate notes, we inumateu
that il the coming decision on the Legai
Tender act should be adverse to ITS consul
tuu0nality the principles declared III 'ne
Confederate notes case would apply to an
dehts in this country contracted under the
Legal Tender act that is they wou.d nave
IN he maid in gold, but not dollar tor doIa
They would be reduced TO gold, estimating
,bem at the premium gold bore at the date |
of tho contract. This would make differ. |
onco in the face Of the debt of ten, twenty, |
mr. thirty per cent, according to depreciation
of grseHbacks at the date Of tbs contract.
Of coursn il cannot be told beforehand |
what scope and effect an unannounced de-
cision may have but the view we suggest
ed seemed to be warranted by the language |
of the Court in the case of Thorington rs.
Smith & Hartley. The same view 10 taken
by abe Cincinnati Gazette. This Chicago
Tribune takes pretty nearly the same vle~'
though it is uncertain whether the debt IS 10
be estimated in the value Of Rreenbacks at
the date, or at the maturity OF the contract
"A verv material difference IN the case OF
farm mortgages deeds of trust mount rances,
and other long debts.--H, Louis Repn6ta'
Cdl.
Unless some case is pending in the Su.
prome Court which has escaped our atten'
ton, there is no necessity for that tribunal
70 intimate an opinion on the question which
seems to be perpexiug our contemporaries
Only two classes Of cases, we think, inVo'V'
ing the legal tender ACT or decisions ofinfe'
rior courts under it, have been presented to
the Supreme Court for its judgment Ono
of these,-the power Of the courts to enforce
contracts expressly payable in gold and
made since the passage Of that act, by
judgements for gold or its equiyalent,-has
already been settled such contracts mean
in the courts what they purport to mean on
their face. The other class of cases presents
this single question; Has Congress author
ity to declare that contracts, made prior to
its declaration, when only gold and silver
were legal tender, may be discharged IN
treasury notes or greenbacks2 Alter the
passage of the act and the prompt decision
of the courts that the dollar of the gold con.
tract meant in law dollar greenback, all
promises to pay were made with reference
TO the act and the decisions Of the courts
and nobody who received such promise
thought Of asking any othe" Interpretation
oft. The forthcoming decision OF the Su'
preme Court will therefore cover the single
point, that the term dollar in contracts made
before the passage Of the legal tender act
means in law q gold dollar, and must be paie
either in gold or its equivalent To decidemort
than THE would be to 20 outside the record
and make @ nero obiter dictUm Ot the
class of debts to be affected by a decision 0
this question, there remain very few unset
tied, and therefore no general uneasines
need be felt on the subject.
The promulgation Of an opinion by tn
supreme court, that the legal tender act
unconstitutional to this extent, would prof.
ABLY lead to suits for the recovery of gol
or its equivalent on contracts made SIN
the passage OF the act, and which were II
tended by both parties to be discharged
legal tender notes. Should such a case b
presented, then the case Of Thorugton v
Smith & Hartley may be cited as authorlt
so far as the facts Of the new case may mai
it applicable. The case supposed wou
probably be different from that already d
cded, unless the decision of shohId entir
" eliminate greenbacks as circuatn
medium of values, in which event, Thorint
ton vs. Smith & Hartley would be direct
and fully in point But if otherwise, cour
would probably give judgements for gree
backs in cases whore proper issues ar
peGlngs might be made.
1t Is not at al likely, therefore, that Il
question which our contemporaries are spe
u,atug about, will arise; for the goVernme
having issued, as its promises to pay, Il
greenbacks now in circulation as none
there is no danger that the courts will deciC
that they have no value at all, and do n
bind the promisor. If,hey shall be held
be not legal tender for debts created beto
they were issued, which almost certainly W
be done, they will nevertheless be regardt
by the government and treated by the cour
as its obligations to pay dollar for dollar
lawful meney, and holders can not suffer.
----~-~-------------~---s--
An accommodating young Jerseym'