New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-02-08
U. s. SUPREME COURT.

was delivered ia the United States Supreme Court to-
day by ChiefJusiicc Chase:
Susan p Hepburn aud Henry A. Hepburn agt. Henry
A. Griswold in to the Court of Appeals
of the State Of Kcntucky-Tho question presented
for our determination by the record In this case is
whether not the payee assignee Of q note
made before the 25th OF February, 1862. obliged
by law TO accept In payment United States notes
equal in nominal amount to the due according to its
when rendered Ivy the maker other party bound
TO it. Aud this requires. in the first place consruc
ton OF that clause OF the first of the act OF Con-
gress passed that day, which declares the United
States notes. the Issue of which authorized by the
statute. to be legal tender In payment of debts The
entire clause is in these words And such notes herein
authorized shall be receivable in payment Of
all taxes, internal duties excuses. debts, and
demands OF every kind due TO the United
States, except duties imports and demands
against the United States OF every kind what
ever. except for upon the bonds and notes.
which shall 0e paid In coin; ard shall also be lawful
money aud legal tender In payment OF all debts public
private within the United States except duties on I'M
ports and interest aforesaid" Q2th u s. Statutes S4
This clause has already received much consideration
here. and this Court has held that, upon sound
sderaton neither taxes imposed by State legislation
Uane County Oregon, Wallace. III, nor demands
contracts which stpuate In terms for the payment
delivery OF coin bullion Bronson agt ROdes, Wal
lace 800; Butler agt. Hartwitz Wallace 25s. are in
cuded by legislative intention, under the description Of
debts, public private
WHAT Is To ne DEcIDED-coIS VS.. CURRENCY.
We are now to determine whether this description en-
debts well after the date OF
the 1t established rule for the construction OF
that the employed by the Legislature
to receive Interpretation which conflicts with
knowedged principles OF Justice and equity, II another
sense. consont with those principles can be given TO
them But this rule prevail where the intent is clear
except in the scarcely snpposabe case where statute
at naught the plancst precepts OF morality AMI
ROCll obligation. COnrtS effect TO the clearly
ascertaincd legislative interest II not repugnant to the
Fundamental law aud ordained in the Constitution. Ap.
plying Just stated the act under consideration
there appears TO be strong reason for constituting the
word "debt' aS having reference only to debts con
traoted snb.cg TO the Tmaetment OF the law for no
act makes legal iG"drr IN payment are essentially n-
like in nature. ana being irredcenabe III coin are neces
tended by parties TO contracts for the payment
of money made before it's passage. The lawful money
sisted Of gold and silver coin The currency in use
under the act anl declared by its terms to be lawful
money aud lrg tender consists OF notes promises to
pay impressed upon paper prepared IN convenient orm
suitable devices and penalties. The former possess
intrinsic value determined by the weight and hneness OF
the metal the latter have no intrinsic value, but
purchasing value determined by the quantity in circua
tOn, by general consent To ITS currency IN payments, and
by opinion the probability OF redemption In coin;
Both derive in different degrees certain additional
value from thrir adaptation TO circulation by the form
and impress given to them under national authority and
from the making them respectively legal tender.
Contracts f." the PAYMENT Of money made before the act
OF 1862 had reference to coined money and could not he
discharged nness by consent otherwise than ay tender
the sum Oue IN CON-
was, in legal import contract for the payment OF CON-
LAWS OF CURRENCY.
There is well-known law Of currency, that notes or
promises pay. unless made conveniently promptly
convertible iuo coin at the will OF the holder never
except under unusual and abnormal conditions, be at
par circulation with coin. II is equally welknOwn
law that depreciation of notes must increase with the
increase Of the quantity put IN crc9latlnn, and dimnu-
noD OF confdece IN ne ability OF GspoSon 70 redeem
lions No act making them q legal tender can
ange in%ce las 'g 6ce spkpry exempaed
IN the history OF the United States notes.
sued in March 1862 they July. 1864 the of
g. for dollar IN gold, and then until recently
then that prior contracts within the intention of the
act and asslng nat the act Is warranea oy the Con
made before the act for $1,000 payable as we have Just
che parties In coiu. required when depreciation
reached Its lowest point to accept In payment 1000 note
dollars although with the 1000 coin dollars due under
the cuuaye purchased on that day 1850 such
dollars Every payment since the passage OF the act OF
note of caIlier date has presented similar though less
striking features Now, certainly needs no argument
20 prove compelling acceptance in satisfaction
of any other than stipulated payment alters arnltfaIS
the terms o the and impars its obligation, ana
eonaty Of the payrnt accepted under the corstrant
Of law the payment due under the contract Nor
tion Of such ar act is contrary TO justice and equality
practical operation act OF Congress to be favored
Or indeed, to be admitted II any other can be reccnehed
with the manifest intent Of the legislature
CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW.
What then Is that manifest INTENT liberty,
mon fair and reasonable construction OF the act
that Congress that the words debts used III the
act should include debts contracted prior to its pas
sagei In the Of Bronson agt Rodes, we thought
ourselves warranted in holding that this word used In the
statute does not include obligations created by express
contract for the payment OF gold ana silver whether
coined In bullion THIS conclusion rested, however,
mainly the which not only allow, but
require payments in coin by or TO The and
may be fairly considered independently OF
belonging law OF contracts Tor the delivery OF
specified articles sanetioning special private conrcts
relatinc 10 Government payments could hardly have
practical effect This consideration however does not
apply TO the matter before There is nothing IN
the terms of the act which looks 70 difference III its op
erstons on different descriptions OF debts, payable gener
lar Thee terms ON TIC contrary in their obvious import
Include equally all debts not specially expressed TO be
payable ia gold silver. whether arising under past con-
tracts aud already due or arising under such contracts
and to become due at future day OF arng anu h
Ing due under subsequent contracts. s,lc anu
construction indeed would, as suggested Dy DIR Justice
ron n stoy on Constitution 92l). limit the word debts"
20 debts existing; and II this construction cannot De a
h. recouced with the obvious scope and purpose of the
act il is certainly conclusive against any interpretations
The same conclusion results from the exeep.
ton of interest on loans ana ,ec Go'es ;endep
clause This exception affords irresistible implication
that description of debts whenever contracted can
be withdrawn from the effect Of the act II not included
within the the reasonable intent OF the excep
thou. And is worthy OF observation III TINS cohhecton
that in all the debates which the act gave occasion in
Congress suggestion ever made that the legal
lender aqe a St d pde as s S 20
considerations to conclusive We do not think
ourselves az liberty therefore, say that Congress did
NOT intend 10 make the notes authorized by 1t legal
tender Of debts contracted before the passage
I'M QUESTION OF coNsTuCTIoNALITY
We art thus brOdght to the question whether Con
sross has power to makes notes Issued under It's au'
tnouty a legal tender in payment of debts which,
when contracted were payable in gold ana 'iver
el,a haa