The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1869-03-04
The Legal Tender Act--Deeision in Bron-

ted The case as tolIows
This ease comes before us on
writof error from The Cours of Ap-
pealsaef New York lThe-faet shown
by the record may be briefly stated =
In December, 1851, one Christian
Metz, having borrowed of Frederick
Bronson, executor of Arthur Bronson.
81 400, executed his bond for the re
payment to Bronson of the principal
sun, borrowed on the first day Of
January. 1857, in gold and silver coin,
lawful money of the United States,
interest also in coin until such repay
ment, atthe yearly rateiofi7 percent
To secure these payments according to
the bond at such place as Bronson
might appoint, orin default of such
appointment. at the Merchants Bank
in New u York, Metz executed a mort
gage upon1eertainreal property which
was afterward conveyed to Rhodes,
who assumed to pay, the mortgage
due, and did, in fact, pay the interest
until and including the first day of
january, 1864. Subsequently, in. JAM
uary, 1866. there having been no der
,mand of payment, nor any appoints
mentlo of place of payment, by Bron7
son. Rodes rendered to him United
States notes for the amount of fifteen
hundred and seven dollars, a; sum
nominally equal to, the principal and
interest due upon the bond and mort
| gage; AT that, time one dollar in coin
was equivalent in market value to two
dollars and o quarter of United States
notes. This tender was refused, where
upon Rodes deposited the United
States notes in the Merchants, Bank to
the credit of Bronson, and filed, his
bill in equity, praying that the mort
gagged premises might be relieved from
the lien fpfn the mortgage, and that
Bronson might be compelled to exer
cute and deliver to him an aeknowl7
edgment of, the full satisfaction and
discharge of the mortgage debit Of
After passing through. the State tri7
bunals the question is, submitted to
the Supreme Court of the United
States. The Chief Justice then pro-
keeeded in. effect to say: The question
| is whether Bronson, the efcreditor, was
bound tolaccept from Rodes, the, debit
or, notes equal in nominal amount ito
the debt-dne in, satisfaction fef {. com
tract stipulating for the payment of
that certain sum in gold and silver
coins lawful money Of the United
States I; now, contracts must be en-
| forced according to the spirit and in
tent of parties; what then, was the
true intent of the contraes of Deeem7
Der, 1851? The currency of the coun-
try then consisted mainly in the cir
culating notes of 1.-THE State banks con-
yertible into coin on demand. At that
period the State banks had recently
emerged from condition of great de-
probation and discredit, a recurrence
of which was generally apprehended,
It was then, to provide against this
possible recurring depreciation that
the stipulation for payment in gold
was inserted in the. bond. The intent
of the parties is therefore clear. AT
ter a resume of the history of coinage,
the weight and purity of coin and the
different statutes affecting it, the
Chief Justice went on to say ~ a,
| tai alt was doubtless, the intention of
the. Legislature, to give a sure guaran-
tee to the people that the coins made
current in payments contained the
precise weight of gold, or silver of the
precise degree Of purity, declared by
statute. 1t recognized, the facts ae-
Ieepted by all men throughout. the
oworld, that value is! inherent in. the
precious metals, that gold and silver
are in themselves values, and being
such and being in other respects best
adapted to the purpose, are the only
proper measures of0value,s and that
these values are determined by weight
and purity, and that the form and inn
press are only certificates of weight
and purity, worthy of absolute reIi-
ance only because of the known integ7
irity and good faith of the government
which gives them The propositions
-thus stated are hel;avad To no ;ncon-