The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-02-08
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1870.
THE LBGAL-TENDER AOT.

THE LEGAL-1BHObh AOL.
THE opinion delivered yesterday by Chief
Justice Chase in the United States Supreme
Court will attract no little attention, as it
involves q decision that q contract made be-
fore the passage of the Legal-tender act, pro-
viding for the payment of money, cannot be
discharged by legal-tender notes. Contracts
made subsequent to 1862 are not necessarily
affected by this decision, and for the present.
at least, it will have no serious influence
upon the bulk of the business of the coun-
try. While the Chief Justice admitted
that Congress intended to make greenbacks
"a legal tender in payment of debts con-
tracted before the passage of the act, and
while his decision is based on the assumption
that such an intention was unconstitutional,
and therefore void, the question of most vital
moment, to wit, whether greenbacks are now,
and have been ever since February, 1862,
legal tender for debts contracted since that
period, is not involved in the case under con-
sideration, but the following extract from the
decision seems to clearly imply that the con-
stitutionality of the Legal-tender act, SO far
as il affects all current transactions, is indis-
putable The Chief Justice says:-
mo one QueBuOnH LH6 K0neTHl COubLiJuLlOuulLy,
and not very many, perhaps, the general expedency
OF the legislation by which note currency has been
authorized in recent years the doubt az ,S as to- to the ne
be legal-tender in payment OF pre-exsting debts,
the only ground upon which this power is asserted,
Is not that the issue Of notes appropriate and
plainly adapted means for carrylng on the war, for
that is admitted, but that the making OF them
legal tender to the extent. mentioned was such a
means"
The real intent and meaning of the de-
oision, therefore, appears to be that the Legal
tender act was unconstitutional so far as it
made United States notes a legal-tender for
the payment of debts contracted previous to
February 1862, but that it is binding and
valid 80 far as it affects all contracts made
since that time.
A dissenting opinion was delivered by Mr..
Justice Miller, Justices Swayne and Davis
conourring, in which the broad ground is
taken, that the Legal-tender act was constitu-
tiond in its application to old debts as well
as new ones It's passage is justified because,
while the States are prohibited by the Con-
stitution from coming money, emitting bills
of credit, or making anything but gold and
silver legal tender for the payment of debts,
no such prohibition is placed upon the power
of Congress, which therefore, by implication,
possesses 1T, and because Congress ls speclh-
cally endowed with the power to make all
laws necessary to maintain the Government
he dissenting Judges contending that the
engencies of the war made the Legal-tender
act, in its widest application, necessity,
On the latter point, especially, great stress
is laid. Justice Miller says that 'the legal
tender clauses of the statutes under consid-
Grafton were placed emphatically by those who
enacted them upon their necessity to the fur
tier 6OyrOeOing Of money and maintaining tie
army and ,,acy," and he contends that if the
legislation in question was necessary it was
constitutional. He disposes of the main
objection to this ruling by affirming that
Congress is not only not forbidden to pass
laws impairing the obligation of contracts, but
that it frequently exercises that power, and
will inevitably continue to exercise it.