The New York herald., 1869-06-18

are Inclined without much examination OF the sub
sct to adopt and follow @ as we certainly appr9Ssf of
Massachusetts IN Carpenter vs. Smelling, supra,
where 1t was hell that the act applied only TO tne
federal courts. and could not be extended 80 as 10
alter or regulate The rules Of evidence In the state
courts.
We have examined the other exceptions taken at
the trial and to the reerees report ana are Of the
opinion that no error was commit ed, except IN the
form OF the decision and Judgment, which we VIII
now correct There were two causes OF action stated
In the complaint one for labor and services pa able
In American gold coin, amounting to the sum OF
1888 OF, and the other for the sum OF $296 3l ior
other labor ana services not contracted To be pad
for in gold.
The referee reported that the 10th day Of June,
1864 lthe day the demand OF payment was madel the
sum Of 1927 81 was due TO the paintln, payable In
American gold coin, and that the same was, on that
day equivalent to the sum Of $3.50 % IN the papep @
the referee added interest from the 10th OF June,
and having also ascertained that the further sum OF
$224 81 was due upon the second cause OF action,
rendered a general judgment for the several sums
collectively.
preme Court OF The United States Bronson VS..
Rodes, 36 How Pr. Reps, 1856; Butler VS.. honirtz
not reported except in newspapers 1t has been held
that there are two kinds OF legal tender lawful
money OF the United StaIes one OF gold and silver
and the other OF the paper currency, authorized Dv
ac.s OF CONGRESS ana tnat contracts Wnic ny ,e, e
be adJudged by the courts TO be valid and their
payment enforced In specie.
It may be serious question whether the state courts
should become Obedent 10 these decisions. In cases
properly before it the decisions OF the ultimate fede
raj tribunal IN ali matters relating TO constitutional
questions and constructions OF State or national
statutes are binding upon State courts. But Con-
gress has net conferred an appellate jurisdiction
upon the Supreme Court In cases arising IN the State
courts which do not necessarily involve the validity
OF some federal statute, as being IN CONFLICT win
some provision Of the constitution OF the United
States ana although that tribunal was reached IN the
cases referred to by means OF decisions made IN the
state courts, declaring the legal tender .,soIr con-
stitutonal, yet the Supreme Court entlrely
rejected and refused to pass upon the only
question really involved and which alone gave to 1t
jurisdlctiOn-namely the constitutional 0oJectlon-
and instead OF dlslnssln2 the appeal wnen II was
ascertained that such objection not necessary to
be passed upOn the court merely decided that,
under the act contracts payable In gold, &c, might
be collected. However, without denying their
authority, and following such decisions as well as
we may be able, let us see how we can conform the
Judgment before us to the law as established by the
cases referred to- In the case OF Butter VS. Honlrl,
IN error for the Court OF Common Pieas OF tne sate
OF Maryland, the contract was payable In gold, and
the judgment was for the value OF the gold In curre-
cy with interest. This the Supreme Court says, was
erroneous. The Chief Justice sayS:-"The damages
should have been assessed at the sum agreed TO be
due, with interest gold, ad Judgment should have
been entered In coin Tor the amount with COSTS"
AS all OF the facts are before US we VIII order the
Judgment TO be modified, nunc pro ttnc, so that II
shall adudge that there Is due TO the piaintn from the
defendant upon the first cause of action the sum OF
1927 ST. in gOld and the further sum OF $50 81, Tor
the interest thereon, also in gOld amounting to-
gether to the sum Of SALT 80 in gold, and that the
plaintiff recover the same from the defendant In
coin; and that 1t shall further adudge that there Is
due to the plaintir from the defendant, upon the
second OF action, the Of S224 81 and that
the plalntiH recover the same from the defendant;
Upon the plantlff consenting to such modlncatlon
the Judgment, modified, will be alfirmed without
costs OF the appeal to either party; otherwise the
Judgment to be reversed, and q new treal ORDERED,