Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-02-19
GOLD Contracts.
The Recent Decision Of the Su-
pFeme court.


wAsHINGroN. February 10, 1863.
kilograms from theWest to-day say that
the important decision Of The Supreme
Court yesterday, 10 one OF the legal teu-
der cases, is not understood there. The
decision was very simple. Il related
wholly to gold contracts made before the
legal tender acts were passed. The Court
said that ss the law making gold and
silver legal tender had never been re-
pealed, they could be eXEcted for the
payment Of coin contracts, and it vOlun-
teered the further opinion that Coin con-
tracts could be made now which would
be legal and valid. In the course Of its
opinion, the Court, after reciting the
laws creating q coin currency, held the
following language;
1.-The Inquiry concerning the legal i'm
port Of the words dollars payable Ia
gold ard silver coin, lawful money Of
| the United States msy be answered
without much difficulty. Every such
dOllSr is piece Of gold or silver certified
to be Of certain weight and purity by
the form and impress given to il at the
mint Of the United States, and therefore
declared to be legal tender IN payment;
I and any number Of such dollars is the
number Of grains of standard gold or
silver in dollar multiplied By the given
number. Payment OF money is the de-
| livery by one 10 another Of the amount
/ due. A contract to pay a certain num-
/ Der of dollars in gold and silver coins is
| therefore In legal import nothing else
/ than an agreement to deliver certain
| weight or standard Of gold, to be aseer-
/ tanned by count Of coins, each OF which
| Is certified to contain certain, definite
/ proportion OF that weight OF bullion Of
( equal fneness. II is distinguishahle IN
/ circumstance only by the fact that the
/ sufficiency OF the amount to be rendered
| in payment must be sscertained in the
case Of bullion by assay and toe scales,
/ while Ia the case OF coin 1t may be as
| certained by the count. We cannot sup
pose that it wss intended by the prOyis
iOus OF the currency acts to enforce sat-
isfsction OF any contract by the tender
OF deprt cisted currency of any dese.ip-
| ton equivalent only in nominal amount
to the real value OF the bulliSn on the
coin dollars. Our conclusion, therefore,
upon this part Of the case, is that the
bond under consideration was ia legal
import precisely what il was in the un-
dsrstanding OF the parties-a valid obli-
CATION, TO be so satisfied by 3 tender OF
sctual payment according to its terms,
and not by an Cfter OF mere nominal
payment Arguments and illustrations
Of much forcs and value in support OF
this conclusion might be drawn from the
possible case Of the repeal OF the legal
tender laws relating to coin aud the con-
sequent reduction OF coined money TO the
legal consideration OF bullion and also
from the actual condition OF partial de-
moralizRtion to which gold and silver
money was reduced by the introduction
into circulation Of the United 3 stet
/ notes and National Bank currency, but
we think it unnecessary to pursue this
branch of the suojset further, nor do We
think it necessary to exsmine the ques
ton whether the clarses Of the currency
act making United States notes lega
tender are warranted by the Constitu-
tiop.n
In this case, after the Chief Justice
concluded, Judge Davis said;
III assent to the result which a major
ity OF the Court has arrived at, that al
express contract to pay coin OF the Uni
ted States made before the act OF Febru
ary 25, 1859, commonly called the legs
]. tender act, is not within the clause
/ that act which makes treasury notes
q legal tender in payment Of debts; but
/. think it proper to guard against ali pos
= slaility Of mIsspprehension by statint
J that il there be any reasoning IN the ma
/. Iority which can be applicable 70 an