The New York herald., 1870-02-08
The Legal Tender Decision Of tho supreme
Court OF tho Unkcd Stntes.

i
embraced in the opinion delivered by Chief
Justice Chase on tho constitutionality OF the
Legal Tender act of 1862 in its application to
debts contracted before the passage of the law.
The question was brought before the court on
an appeal from the Court Of Appeals of Ken
lucky, and the decision of the court below is
| sustained, that contract made before the
passage OF the law cannot be discharged in the
paper money of the United States, but must be
paid ia 50 many dollars and cents, gold valua-
| tion.
| The Legal Tender act OF Congress, approved
! February 25, 1862, provides that Treasury
notes (greenbacks) authorized by the act
| shall be receivable in payment of all United
States taxes, excises, debts and demands OF
every kind due, excepting duties on imports
andinterest on the public debt and shall also be
lawful money and legal tender in payment OF
all debts public and private, within the United
States, excepting duties upon imports, DC.
This is the law in question, and since it's pas
sage it has been universally accepted as COW
ering all private debts and obligations through
out the United States, including contracts
made before as well as those made after the
passage Of the act. In the simple prohibition
Of the constitution against any er post facto
law, without any further words on the sub
ject, one would think the question settled that
even an act Of Congress, making its paper mo-
ney legal tender in the payment Of all debts,
could not operate backwards; but in the nearly
equal division Of the Supreme Court upon this
case, and in the exhaustive and somewhat ex-
hausting opinion of the Chief Justice on the
one side, with the dissenting opinion Of Mr..
Justice Miller on the other side, we see that
the plainest constitutional provisions, before
committee Of lawyers, are involved in the
greatest difficulties, doubts and uncertainties.
1t is enough, however, that the majority of
the court are with the Chief Justice in his
opinion that gold or its equivalent must be
given in the settlement of all debts
and obligations contracted before the passage
Of this Legal Tender act Of 1862. In the single
item OF interest on mortgages in this city
alone this decision, practically adding twenty
per cent to their value, will perhaps require an
eight millions; for we estimate the principal
Of the unsettled mortgages in this city con-
tracted prior to the approval Of the Legal
Tender act as covering not less than five hun
dred millions of dollars. Throughout the coun-
try the holders of mortgages and other contracts
to which this decision will apply are gamers to
the extent probably of over hundred millions
in greenbacks.
But this opinion or the Chief Justice is of
less Importance in the decision given than in
the decision withheld. The decision given
does not touch the validity Of greenbacks as
legal tender since the passage Of the act OF
1862. All such payments, therefore, still hold
good, and may still be made. Whatever may
be the opinion of the Chief Justice upon this
important branch of the subject, he has care
fully avoided expressing it, and for the reason,
no doubt, that he has thought it best not to
risk decision at this time. For example,
If the Chief Justice had ventnred an opinion,
one way or the other, and the majority of the
court bad decided that the paper money Of the
United States cannot be made legal tender
by act Of Congress, and that the act of 1862 is
null and void, financial revu]sion would be
precipitated upon the country, the conse-
quences of which would be disastrous beyond
all contemplation. It would involve the whole
country in financial chaos and the government,
perhaps, in bankruptcy and Reputation.
This panic and this convulsion have been
avoided, and we have no fears that the
Supreme Court will risk for long time to
come decision against our greenback cur
rency as legal tender. As the father of the
greenback, as the founder of our present
national paper money system, bonds, banks
and currency, we cannot doubt that upon
this legal tender question Chief Justice Chase
is with Chase the Secretary Of the Treasury.
eratey proceed to build up paper
money system which he believed to
be unconstitutional, nor can we suppose
that he has since become so much more learned
in the constitution as to change his mind on
the subject. In short, we have no fears of
any decision from the Supreme Court that will
deraDge our financial system, the credit of the
government or the business affairs of the coun-
try growing out of the financial measures
adopted by Secretary Chase to carry the
Union through the late revolutionary war.
4 We rather expect that after the addition to
The Supreme Court Of the two members
required to fill two vacancies (and for which
the President has sent in his nominations to
the Senatc) we shall have an Oniniou from the
Chief Justice supported by majority of the
court, if not by all the court, sustaining the
Legal Tender act. At all events, as the Supreme
Court (even when most strongly seasoned with
State rights men) has carefully avoided any
disturbing collision with Congress on It's war
measures and reconstruction laws, so we
expect it viii carefully avoid any decision
calculated to shake in any way our national
currency or credit, as it has avoided any such