Evening star., 1870-02-08
The LEGAL TENDER CASES.
The Decision Of the Supreme Court.

We made \ brief mention Yesterday OF the
decision of the Supreme Court in one OF the long
pending legal tender cases. The question pre-
sented for their determination by the record in
this case WAS whittier o. not the payee or
assignee OF note made before the 2Jth OF Feb
r"afy, iaGs, II obliged by Law 10 accept ia pay
nent United States notes eqaal in "A animal
amount 10 tke sum dac accard.rrt. a. Tins.
when rendered by the maNsr - a.h.r party
bound to ray ~ Aud 'his requires in a. irst
place. construction OF that claase ef a.. h-xe
section OF the at of srgrSs f,g~>ai on -f,at l,v
VII Gu declares the IHItod q States MT : the
issle Of which was authorized by the s-atute. 20
be a legal tender IN pavmen' of d.btS.
1 he Chief Justice said: -ThiS clsuSe has al
ready received mucs consideration here and this
coliIt has held tha. iPon a sound constrac ct.on.
neither taxes imposed by State legislation. nor
demands upoh contracts which StiPulase in
terms for the payment Ur delivery OF coin or
bullion are included ay legislative intention
under the description OF debts public aud
private. We are now 10 determine " neither this
description embraces debts contracted b cfore,
a. well as after the date OF the act" On this
point the opinion says: "There appears 90 DO
strong reason for constituting the word 'debts' as
having reference onfy TO debts contracted SUISSE
quent 10 The enactment of the law. For no one
will question that the United States notes,
which the act makes legal tender in payment,
are essentially unlike in nature, and being ire
decmable in coin are necessarily unlike in
value, TO the lawful money intended by parties
10 contracts ior the payment OF money made
Referring 20 the question whether Congress
has power 70 make notes issued under it, au-
thority legal tender In payment OF debts,
which, when contracted, were payable by Law
IN gold and silver coin, the opinion holds that
the power TO issue notes and the power 70 make
them legal tender are not the same power,
and that they have no necessary connection
With each other, and saws :-'' No one questions
the general constitutionalty, and not very many,
perhaps, the general expediency Of the legisla-
ton by which a note currency has been autho-
rized in recent years. The doubt is as 90 the
power 10 declare a particular class OF these
notes to be legal tender IN payment OF pre-
existing debts. We arc unable to per-
suade ourselves that expedent OF this sort in
an appropriate and plainly adapted means for
the execution of the power 20 declare aud carry
on war. III II adds nothing to the utility of the
notes, IL cannot be upheld as means to the end
IN furtherance OF which the notes are issued.
Nor can il, in our judgment, be upheld rs such
n, while facilitating In some degree the circu-
lation OF the notes, IL debascs aud injuries the
currency in its proper use TO a much greater
degree. We are obliged to conclude
That an act making mere promises TO pay dollars
a legal tender i'm payment OF debts previously
contracted il not a means appropriate, plainly
adapted, really calculated 10 carry into effect
that such an act is inconsistent with the spirit
OF the Constitution. and that IL Is prohibited by
the Constitution. We are obliged,
therefore, to hold that the de efendant in error
was not bound to receive from the plaintiffs the
currency rendered to him in payment Of their
note made before the passage OF the act Of Feb
The court decides nothing about contracts
made after the passage of the law i'm 1852, that
point not being involved
Mr.. Justice Miller, for himself, and Mr.. JUS
tce Swayne and Mr.. j ustice Davis, read dis
senting opinion, holding that il was competent
for Congress, 60 enable the Government 10 car
ry into effect any Of the powers conrded to IL by
the Constitution, 10 enact any law necessary for
that purpose; and, that where the performance
OF any duty is imposed on the Government Of
the United States by the Constitution the means
to that end will be presumed to have been con-
ferred also. IL is said that on no other theory
could the late war have been carried on by the
Government, and brought TO a successful close;
that without this power in Congress, the indis-
pensable means in the way of money aud sap
plies 10 conduct the war and maintain its armies
could not have been obtained, and the effort OF
the Government TO maintain itself and the union
OF tie country must have failed.
The argument to the constitutonality OF
she legal-tender act is exhaustive, cleing as
follows: "But il is said that the law Is I'm con-
ict with the spirit, if not the letter, of several
provisions Of the Constitution. Undoubtedly it
Is law impairing the obligation OF contracts
made before its passage; but while the COnsti-
tuition forbids the States TO pass such laws, it
does not forbid Congress; on the contrary, Con-
gress is expressly authorized 20 establish a uni
form system of bankruptcy, the essence OF
which Il TO discharge debtors from the obliga-
ton of their contracts, and in pursuance of this
power Congress has three times passed such q
law, which in every instance operated ON con-
tracts made before it was passed. Such law is
now in force, yet its constitutOnslity has never
been Questioned. How can it be in accordance
with the spirit Of the Constitution 20 destroy
directly the creditors contract for the sake of
the individual debtor, but contrary TO its spirit
TO anect remotely its value for the safety OF the
nauon, II Is difhcuit TO perceive. So IL IL said
that the provisions that private property shall
not be taken for pablic use without Just COM
pensation, and that no person shall he deprived
OF life, liberty, or property without due course
OF law, are opposed TO the acts under consideTa-
ton.
The argument is too fine for nv perception by
which the indirect effect OF great public meas
ure In depreciating the value of land, stocks,
ponds, and other contracts, renders such law
lnvand as taking priyaL Le property for public use,
or as 1epriying the owner OF it without due
course OF law. A declaration Of war with n
maritime power would thus be unconstitutional,
because the value Of every ship abroad is
a%os a: or 80 snd Of hSse . a. home
iron or sugar would in like manner destroy the
furnaces and sink the capital employed in the
manufacture of these articles Yet mo states
man, however warm an advocate Of high tariffs,
has Claimed that To abolish such duties would
be unconstitutional as taking private property.
me principle be sound, every successive issue
OF Government bonds during the war was void
because by increasing the public debt, II made
those already in psiyate hands less valuable.
This whole argument Of the injustice OF the
law, ian injustice which, il IL ever existed viii
be repeated by now holding il void,) aud OF its
oplositlon 10 the spirit OF the Constitution, is
ieo abstract and Intangible for application to
courts OF justice, and II, above ALL ia erous as
a ground on which TO declare the legislation OF
Congress void by the decision OF a court. liz
would authorize this court 70 enforce theOTeti-
cal views OF the gciias Of our Government. or
vague notions OF the spirit of the Consultation
and Of abstract justice, 10y declaring void laws
which did not square with them. AZ Substitutes
our ideas OF policy ior judicial construction,
and an undeiined code Of ethics for the Consti-
tuition, and court Of justice for the National
Legislature. Upon the enactment OF these legal
tender laws, they were received with almost uni-
versal acquiescence as valid. Payments were
made i'm the legal tender notes for debts in ex-
istence when the law was passed, to the amount
OF thousands of millions OF dollars. though gold
was the only lawful tender when the debts were
An equal, If not larger, amount ~
now due under contracts made since their pas
sage, under the belief that these legal tenders
would be valid payments The two Houses OF
Congress, the President who signed the bill,
and fifteen State courts of last resort-being all
but one that have passed upon the question
have expressed their belief in the Constitution
alify Of these laws.
With all this great weight OF authority, this
strong concurrence Of opinion among those who
have passed upon the question before we have
been called to decide IL, whose duty it was Is
much rs II is ours, 70 pass upon Ii in the light OF
the Constitution, are we 20 reverse their action,
to disturb contracts, 70 declare the Law void, be-
cause the necersity for its enactment does not
appear 20 strong 10 US as il did 70 Congress, or
my idea Of the relative functions OF the legisla-
tive and judicial departments Of this Govern
ment. Where there h a choice of means the
-. A.