The weekly Arizona miner., 1870-03-05

rectly to the National Governmen, T. not, m terms, prohibit legislation vh;s n uoa propna'es private property of one c,..p ap clulehs 70 the use of another class. I'. Ci socn property cannot be taken for tb.' hn ouVn oi all, without compensation, it ia d,s,II to understand how it can be SO taken s.Vuh sa.. oenent o' part, without violating tha s,iI.e sue of prohibition. 'ne spirit
 bu, there is another provision in ,bo
 amendment, which, in our judgment s.n ,ane nave its Hull and intended effect mi, sa"hot strued as direct prohibition of Inc ,sus',n Syn ton which We have been considerin, eI. that which declares "that no person sh.n,h deprived of life, liberty, or proper,v .,.t a.' os due process of lawn .tt is not donh,aaa ",'aSut all provisions of the amendment ops-s,' us' si rectly in limitation and restraint oT ,Ss, Vl' lslstive powers conferred by the fop.,;.~,i,ss' The only question is, whether an ac, w.sul compels all those who hold contracts fa. .H payment Of gold or silver money to ....u. sle ] m payment currency of inferior v,lr. " prives such persons of property withou, S". process of law. It is quite clear ths, ,st'. ever may be the operation of such ,., JO process Of law makes no part of if. nnasi. deprive any person of property7 4 vs.' large proportion of property of civilized " exists in the form of contracts Tbese - eH tracts almost invariably stipulate for payrs., of money, and we have already seen ". ,tn. | contracts in the United States, prior ,o ,S' act under consideration, for raynsn, .s money, were contracts 10 pay sums snec;ssl in gold and silver coin, and it ia bsvosS doubt that holders of these contracts ;.ss. sa and are, fully entitled to the protee,ior o, the constitutional provision as holders of ,u~ other description of property are pro,pcts!, | by 1t from legislation, which ineideptslv only impairs It's value; and it may be urosd in illustration, that holders of stock in turnpike, or bridge, or manufacturing cor. poration, or an insurance company. or banl cannot, by authorizing similar works or co,, l porations, reduce its price in the market. Bu, all this does not appear to meet the real df. | fieulty m the cases mentioned. The inoui,v Is purely contingent and incidental.
 | In the course we are considering it i. d. rect and inevitable. If, in the case mentior. ed, the holder of stock was required to con. vey 1t on demand to any one who should think fit to offer half value for i.. the anal. | ogy would be more obvious. No one pyob.. | ply could be found to contend that sn Ae, i forcing the acceptance of 56 or 75 aerrs of land in satisfaction of contract to convey 1 100 acres, would not come within the probi bition against the arbitrary deprivation of property. We confess ourselves unable 10 perceive any solid distinction between such an Act, and an Act compelling all citizens to accept, in satisfaction, half, three auarter.. or any other proportion less than the whele Of the value actually due, according 10 their l Tt "a would take private property without proce.s Of law, if such an act would not We are obliged to conclude that an act making mere promises 10 pay dollars, . legal tender, in payment of debts previously contracted, i, not means appropriate--plainly adapted, really calculated to carry into effect any q. press power vested in Congress; that such an act is inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution, and that 1t is prohibited by the Constitution. It is not surprising that, smid the tunult of the late civil war, and under the influence of apprehension for the safety of the republic almost universal, different views, never before entertained by Amenesn statesmen, were adopted by many. The time was not favorable for considerable reflection upon ihe constitutional limits of legislative or executive authority. If power was assum- ed from patriotic motives, ahe assumption found ready justification in patriotic hearts Many who doubted yielded their doubts, Many who did not doubt, were silent. Some who were strongly averse to making Govern rnent notes legal tender, felt themselves constrained to aequiece in the views of s9vo- cates of the measure. Not few who then agreed upon its necessity, or aequiesced in the view, have, since the return of peace and under the influence Of cnlmer times, recon. sidered their conclusions, and now concured in the views which we have just announced. These conclusions seem to ms to be tnlly sanctioned by the letter and spirit of the Constitution. We are obliged, therefore, to hold that defendant in error was not bound to receive from the plaintiff the currency rendered to him in payment of the note made before the passage of the act of February 70, 1862. It follows that the judgment Of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky must be affirmed
 Justice Miller delivered dissenting oPlh' ion, which was concurred in by Justices