The sun., 1870-02-08

n.nts fhust be considered In this connection. We
refer 70 that which ordains that
PRivAfk FnoPERrY SHALL NOT BIZ TAKEN ron
PUBLIC USE
without compensation. This provision ie kindred
In spirit to that which forbids legislation impaifng
the obligations Of contracts but unlike that II IL
addressed DIRECTLY and solely to the nationai oov.
eminent II does not IN terms prohibit ligisiauon
which aDproprlaes the privute property OF one eass
Of citizens to the use d another cis.s but 4 sneh
property cannot be taken for the benent o' W. wNn
ou, s deSs to ~ enss @,tSos, So
violating the spirit OF the Prohibition
But there II another provision IN the same smenI;
a, intended effect unless construed direct rro
hiDilion Of the LEGISLATION wbcn we have been con-
s.dcrlng. II is that which declars that
20 PERSON SMALL M DEPRIVED OF LiFB, LIBERTY
or PROPERTY
without due process Of law. II L. not Doubted that
m tho provisions Of this omendment operate di
rccty in limitation and restraint OF the luglsilIe
roVers conferred by the constitution. Ihe onN
question Is, Whether an act which conpes all ,,ose
Who hold contracts for the payment OF gold or silver
money To accept In payment currency oil ID,
sor v9ps d'E,iS'' rrn"S. such Ser'IGUs Iss T.
Il quite clear that whatever may be the
operation Of such act, due process Of law makes
ettyf pr very large large PROPORTION % Of Tie property o.
civilized men etiss IN the form Of contracts These
SsnraS, omSs' nfsr@Sy s1pgae aps,av sdSn ,S bSt
tracts In the United States, pror TO the act under
consideration for the payment Of money, were con-
tracts to pay the sum specified In gold and SILVER
coin and 1t Is beyond doubt that tho holders OF
these contracts were md are fuilv eutitled TO the
protection Of this constitutional provision a. the
holders Of any otner desrrption of property,
No ono, probsblI, could be found 20 contend that
an act enforcing the acceptance OF fitv or eevcnv-
Ave OF nd IN satisfaction OF contract 10 CON
vey q hundred, would not come within the pioh
bition against arbitrary privation OF property. We
confess ourselves unable TO perceive any solid t1s
tiucuon between such IN net aud an act compelling
all citizens TO accept, IN satisfaction OF all contracts
for money, hnlf or three quart -, any other pro
portion Ice than the whole Of the value actually due,
according to their terms II Is dinicut 10 conceive
what pct would tike private property without
process Of law. II such act would not We are
obliged to conclude that m act making mere prom
iscs to pay dollars legal tender IN payment OF
debts previously contracted. Il not means arptopn
ate, ylinly adapted really calculated to carry into
eject any exuTcss power vested in Congress; that
such an act Is inconsstent with the spirit OF the
Constitution, and that 1t Is prohibited IN the Consu-
ton.
THs JUDGMENT.
These conclusions seen TO US TO be fully sane
toned by the letter and spirit of the Conrtituton.
We are Obliged therefore TO hold that the defendant
error not bound to receive from the plain.
TINS the currency rendered to him In payment OF
thelr note made before the passage OF the act OF
February IN, ls62. IL follows that the judgment OF
the Court Of Appeals OF Kentucky must be Affirmed.