The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1869-03-24
An Important Case.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT ON COIN
CONTRACTS.

L
| The Supreme Court Of the United State
in the case Of Bronson against Rode.
made an important decision this weel
which is TO the effect that contracts to pa
coin can only be discharged with coin.
naturally attracts considerable attention
and comment. Certainly, nothing can b
more sensible than that man who ha
specifically agreed to pay SO many dollan
in gold should be made to pay them in gold
and not be allowed to put off his creditor
with paper worth only three-quarters q:
much as gold. Yet some Of the presl
seem to be under the impression that
whereas the particular contract on which
the suit was based was made before the
iegal-tender act was passed, the decision
includes only contracts of that description.
1t is true that Judge Davis, after the opin-
ion of the court was delivered, said:
l assent to the result which majority OF
the court has arrived at, that an express
contract to pay coin of the United States
made before the act Of February Is, 1862
commonly called the legal-tender act, is not
within the clause Of that act which makes
treasury notes legal.tender in payment of
debt. But l think it proper TO guard against
all possibility of misrepresentation by stating
that II there be any reasoning in the opin-
ion OF the majority which can be applica
bic to any other class of contracts, it does
not receive my assent.
But no other of the asserting Judges
took this view, aud there was no dissent
ing opinion except that of Judge Miller.
and the New York World well says:
1t was the clear opinion of the majority
OF the court that all contracts stipulatipe
in gold, whether prior to the legal
tender act or subsequent to it, are valid in !
law. Not only does the whole reasoning
pf the court support this conclusion, but it |
IS impossible to imagine any line of nrpu.
nent which would uphold the validity of
previous gold contracts that would not ap-
ply with equal force to contracts made sub
Iequent to the passage OF the act. Nobo. |
" has ever contended that the legal-tender
.ct was not retrospective in it's operation.
The act itself makes no distinction between
,ast and future debts, EOr has such o dis.
inction ever been made by any court.
State or Federal, in its expositions of it.
The very fact that the contract on which
ne present decision has been rendered
vas made before the war, strengthens in.
tesd OF invalidating the conclusion that it
pplies to all cases, Of the same kind. For
INT is the fact on which the decision is
rounded Why. the fact OF a specific con-
Tacts. It is this fact of contract which
eparates the case from the great mass of
ebts incurred before the legal-tender act
as in existence, and which is assigned by
he court as the sole basis Of its decision. !!
III other previous debts are left by this
ecision as capable of being legally dis
iarged by the tender of United States
otes, which demonstrates that the retros. ,
ective operation Of the law was in no way !,
'nsidered in the decision.
The following extract from the opinion
tho court will bear perusal, as proving, Z
'yond all doubt, the ample scope of tue
'cision:
"a contract to pay certain number of s
liars in gold and silver coins is, there q
re, IN legal import nothing else than an r
greement to deliver certain weight of
andard gold to be ascertained BY q count
coins, each of which is certified to con- o
in definite proportion of that weight. n
IS not distinguishable, as ice think in :,
tnctpdI from a contract to delirer on !.
uol soetga Of bullion Of equal f,,eness.- n
IS distinguishable in circumstances only Ii
the TACT that the suficiency of the R
'ount to be rendered in payment must be IT
certained in the case Of bullion by essay :
d the scales, while in the case of coin it Ia
y be ascertalned by the count"
Alter some further argument on this a.
int the court says it does not think it
,essary to examine the question whether p
clauses of the currency act, making nj
lited States notes legal tender, are it
rranted by the constitution in this case 9,
it proceeds to inquire whether, upon ~
assumption that those clauses are 30 Pe
rranted, and upon the further assump-
that engagements to pay coined dollars
be regarded as ordinary contracts to ne
money rather than as contracts to de. No
u certain amounts of standard gold, it =
be maintained that contract to nav pU
ned money may be satisfied by tender Gu
United States notes. Is this q perform. do
g OF the contract within the true intent =.
he acts? az
t must be observed that the laws of the er
Rage Of gold and silver have never been trG
saled or modified; they remain on the or,
ute book in full force, and the emission ..
old aud silver coin from the mint con. "''
les, the actual coinage during the last ur'
al year having exceeded, according to die
report Of the director of the mint, $l9, wi
900; nor have those provisions of the ~.
which make these coins legal tender ii''
IL payments been repealed or msdifed. en-
blows that there were two descriptions me
money in use at the time the tender mr.,
er consideration was made, both au- g.
!ized BY law, and both made legal ten. De
in payments. The general denomina. DR.
of both descriptions was "dollars," but TIL
: were. essentially unlike in nature bo,
coined dollar was, as we have seen, a '
Q Of gold or silver of a prescribed de- WI
Of purity, weighing q prescribed num-
Of grains the note dollar was promise
pay coin dollar, but it was not the
Mise to pay on demand. nor at any fixed y; =
}, nor was it in fact convertible into a e'
dollar. nes
is impossible. in the nature of things, the
these two dollars should be the actual asi,
valents of each other; nor was there r.,
hing in the currency acts purporting o'
AXE them such. How far they were at the