The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-02-11

AS has already been briefly stated in our
tclcgraphic advices, the case OF Hepburn VS..
Griswold, brought from the Court of Appeals
of Kentucky, involving the lcgal-tendcr law,
was decided in the United States Supreme
Court at Washington on Monday. Chief Jus
tice Chase delivered the opinion of the court,
sustaining the decision of the court below, and
holding that " contract made before the legal
tender law could not be discharged in United
States notes. The opinion Is very long. and
discusses at great length the powers OF Con-
rress. 1t holds that Congress had no rightto
make government notes lcgal-tendcr for pre-
existing private debts 1t docs not touch the
question OF contracts made since the law was
passed. This opinion was concurrcd ia by
Justice Nelson, Justice Clifford and Justice
Field. Mr.. Justice Miller delivered the mi
nority opinion, concurred in by Justice Swayne
and Justice Davis, holding the law to be en-
tircy constitutional. treating 1t principally as
an incident to the war power. The following
is full abstract of
TIE OPINION.
The question presented is whether or not the
nayec or assignee OF q note male before the
18th of February, 1862, is obliged by law to ac-
cent in payment United States notes OF noml-
nal amount to the sum due according 10 us
terms, when rendered GS tne MAKER c,s or o.her CT
drIiverinr the opinion, said that the question
reouired in the first place construction OF
TINT clause of the first section OF the act OF
Conurcss. passed on that day, which declares
the United States notes. the issue of which was
authorized by the statute, 10 De legal tender
in payment of debts. The entire clause Is In
these words: "And sGch notes hereia aItnor- a nor
lied shall be receivable in payment OF all tax
% internal duties, excise debts and demands of
every Kind due to the United States, except
dntIes on imports, and demands against the
limited States of every kind whatsoever, eX-
cent for interest upon bonds and notes, which
shall be paid in coin, and shall also be lawful
| money and q legal tender In payment OF oil
debts. public and private, within the United
States. except duties on imports ana interest
as aforesaid.r IL U. S. Statutes, 3l5.
| This clause has already received much con-
| siderniion here, and this court has held that
upon sound construction neither the taxes
| mposed by State legislation nor demands upon
| contracts which stipllatc IN terms for the pay
ment or delivery of coin or bullion are IN
cluded by legislative intention under the de-
scrjntion of 'Sdcbts, public and private" The
court now had to determine whether this de-
scrption embraces debts contracted before as
we'll as after the date OF the act.
Afler referring to the cstablishedrul in con-
STRUNG legislative enactments, the Chief JUS
ticc continued: There appears to be 4 strong
reason for constituting the word ''debts" as llay-
in~ reference only to debts contracted subse-
onent to the enactment of the law, for no one
will question that the United States notes,
which the act makes q legal tender In pay
mcnt. are essentially unlike In nature, and,
hpinT irrcdcemabe In coin, arc necessarily I'M
like in value to the lawful money intended by
the parties to the contracts for the payment or
money made before lis passage. the lawful
money then in Use and made legal tender In
payment consisted of gold and silver csin
| Thc currency In use under the act. and de-
| clarcd by its terms to be lawful. money, ana
| legal tender consists of notes or promises to
nay impressed upon paper prepared IN con,
venlent form for circulation, and protected
against counserfeiting by suitable devices and
penalties.
before the act Of 1867 had reference to coined
money. and could not be discharged, unless by
consent. otherwise than by the tender of the
sum due, in coin. Such contract therefore
was, in legal import, contract for the pay
| ment Of coin.
After giving illustrations involving the fluc-
tuations in value Of paper currency, and the
consequent hardship of arbitrary and compul-
! sorry enactments Us applied to prior contracts
The opinion demonstrates that an act compel
| ling acceptance or satisfaction of any other
than stipulated payment alters arbitrarily the
terms OF the contract and impairs Its obliga-
ton, and that the practical operation of such
an act ia contrary to justice and equity. IL
| follows that no construction which attributes
such practical operation to an act OF Congress
! is to be favored, or indeed to be admitted, If
any other can be reconcled with the manifest
intent of the Legislature, -.
The court considers ut length the probable
meaning of the term "debts," as intended by
Congress, and concludes that 1t Is not at lib
erty to say that Congress did not intend to
make the notes authorized by it 3 legal-tender
in nayment of debts contracted before the
passage of the act. This suggests the question
whether Congress has the power to make notes
issued under It's authority lcsal-tender in
, nayment of debts which, when contracted,
we're payable by law In gold and silver coin.
In ascertainng the respective rights OF par
ties. continues the court iLtrcquently becomes
necessary to consult the constitution. Tor there
can he no law inconsistent with the tlnda-
mental law No enactment not in pursuance
of the authority conferred by it can create OBJ
limations or confer rights, for such is the cX-
press declaration of tile constitution ITSELF
Not every act of Congress. then, is to be re-
garled rs the supreme law Of the land, nor IL
il by every act of Congress that The Judges are
boind-this character and this force belongs
to such acts as arc "made In pursuance OF the
constitution The plaintiff in the court below
sought to recover of the defendants certain
sum EXPRESSED on the face OF q promissory
| nole. The defendants Insisted on the right
under the act of February %, 1862, to acQuit
themselves OF their obligations, by rendering
in payment a sum noniinally equal in United
States notes, but the note had been executed
before the passage of the act, and the plaintiff
insisted on his right, nnder the constitution, to
be paid the amount due in gold and silver,
and it has not been and cannot be denied
that tile plaintiff was entitled 10 Judgment
according to his claim, unless bound by
II constitutional act 10 accept the notes
rs coin, As two questions were directly
presented: We're the defendants relieved By
the act from the obligations assumed In the
contract Could the plaintiff, by Judgment
of the court, receive in payment currency of
different natures and value from thai Which
was in the contemplation Of the parties when
the contract was made? the Court of Appeals
decided both questions In the negative, and
| the defendant seeks the reversal OF that judS-
ment by writ of error 1t becomes our duty,
therefore, to determine whether the act OF
| February 25, 1852 SO far rs 1t makes United
States notes Il legal tender In payments Of
debts contracted prior to its passage, is con-
stilutiOnal and valid or otherwise.
The powers Of Congress, though extensive,
arc limited by the constitution which grants
them. The extension Of them by implication
is delicate, and may bt dangerous. All pow
ers implied, but not expressly granted by that