The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1870-02-08
WASHINGTON ITEMS.
lBy Telegraph to the Register.l
WASHINGTON, February z.
Decision In the Hepburn-G ris"oia

Case.
The case of Hepburn VS.. Griswold,
brought from the Court Of Appeals of
Kentucky, involving the legal tender
law, was decided in the United States
Supreme Court TO day. Chief Justice
Chase delivered the opinion of the Court
below, holding that a contract made be-
fore the legal tender law could not be
discharged in United States notes. The
opinion is very long, and discusses at
great length the power of Congress;
holds that Congress had no right to
make Government notes legal tender
for pre-existing private debts. 1t does
not touch the question of contracts
made since the law was passed. The
opinion was concurred in by Justices
Nelson, Clifford and Field. Justice
Miller delivered a minority opinion,
which was concurred in by Justices
Swayne and Davis, holding it to be
constitutional and treating it pIinci-
ClpaIly 10 du lLCauoub W lbC wal IohSl.
Nominations.
The following nominations were sent
to the Senate to-day: Joseph P. Brand
ley, ofNew Jersey, Associate Justice of
the Supreme Court Of the United States;
VIM. Strong, of Pennsylvania, Associ-
ate Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States; John w. Longyear, Dis.
trict Judge of the Eastern District OF
Michigan.
Opinion.
The opinion delivered to-day by Chief
Justice Chase on the legal-tender ques.
ton is very long. He closes as follows
No one probably could be found to
contend that an act enforcing the &C
ceptance of fifty or seventy-ive acres
of land in satisfaction of a contract to
convey one hundred would not come
within prohibition against arbitrary
deprivation of property. We confess
ourselves unable TO perceive any solid
distiEc tiop between such an act and an
act compelling all citizens to accept 10
satisfaction of all contracts for money
one half or three-quarters or any other
proportion less than the whole of the
value actually due according TO the
terms.
1t is difficult to conceive what act
would take private property without
process of law. If such an act would
rob, we are obliged TO conclude that an
act making mere promises to pay dol
lars, q legal tender in payment of debts
previously contracted is not a means
appropriate, plainly adapted or really
calculated to carry into effect any power
vested in Congress and tina. such an act
is inconsistent with the spirit of the
Constitution and is prohibited by the
Constitution.
1t is not surprising that amid the tn,
multi of the late civil war, and under
the influence of apprehensions for the
safety of the Republic, almost univer'
sal, different views, never before enter
tanned by American statesmen or juIists
were adopted by many. The tune was
not favorable to coDsiderste reflection
upon the constitutional limits of leg.
islation OF executive authority. If pow
or was assumed from patriotic motives,
assumption found ready Justification in
patriotic hearts. Many who dOubsad
yielded their doubt; many who did
not doubt were silent; some who were
strongly averse to making the Govern
ment notes a legal tender, felt them
selves constrained to acquiesce in the
views of the advocates of the measure
not a few who then insisted upon its ne
cessity or scqpiesced in that view have
since the return of peace, and under the
influence Of calmer times, IecOns, deIe
their conclusions, and now concur in
these views which we have just an
nouneed.
These conclusions seem to us to be
fully sanctioned by The letter and spirit OF
the Constitution, and we are Obliged
therefor to hold that the defendant IL
error was not bound to receive from the
plaintiff, the currency rendered te him II
payment of their note made before tht
passage of the act of July %, 1862. II
follows that the judgment OF the Court
of Appeals of New York must lie affirm
ed. justice Miller dissented from the
decision.