Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-03-17
THE LATE LEGAL TENDER DE-
CEST0N.

THE LATE LEGAL TENDER DE-
CESI0N.
The Philadelphia Ledger prints letter
from ]. w. Wallace, Esq, official re-
porter of the United States Supreme Court,
which, although private and non-otficial,
must be credited with considerable weight
as probably rejecting more or less the
/ personal feeling of the members of the
court; at least it can be relied on as accu-
rate in its relation of facts. Mr.. Wallace
does not think that the recent decision of
the court on the legal tender question will
be reversed, and giving the reason for the
faith that is in him, states that "the whole
history of the Supreme Court of the
| United States records no successful effort
at such an attempt Moreover, he states
that there is no case on the docket now
which involves the question of the legality
| of the legal tender act, and that it would
take two or three years to bring new
one into shape for a decision in the
| present crowded state of the docket of
that tribunal II may be added, that
whatever the private opinion of the new
Judges who may hereafter go on the bench
may have about the correctness of the
late adjudication, they would hardly ven
ture to suggest the overriding of de-
cision so solemnly made as the late one.
The following extract from Mr.. Wallace's
letter viii be interesting:
"When the decision in what is called
the legal tender case was made, the Su-
preme Court of the United States consist
ed of eight judges, the number then fixed
for it by law. And the decision that notes
of the United States when rendered in
payment of contract made previously to
the passage of the legal tender act of Feb
ruary, 1862, was no lawful tender, was
concurred in by Jice judges, not by three,
as assumed. These five judges were the
Chief Justice and the Justices Nelson,
Gr1er, Clifford and Field. Judge Grier
had left the bench before the opinions
were delivered, but he was on it when
the case was argued in conference, and
when the judgment of affirmance of the
Court of Appeals of Kentucky, which
had decided the tender bad, was irrevo-
cably and perfectly agreed on. And this,
in substance is stated in the opinion of the
court as officially printed, though not in
others that | have seen.
"While ON the subject, and since |
have seen it stated that the decision does
not apply to interest which has accrued
since the legal-tender acts, on obligations
given before them, and that, under the
| decision, interest on such obligations may
be paid in paper, | may take leave to add
that the decision did apply to interest
| just as much as to principal. Part of
the tender made in the case was exactly
for interest-interest l mean, which had
accrued after the passage of the legal
tender act The Court of Appeals made
no distinction between principal and inter-
est, but held the tender bad an toto. And
so the Supreme Court held it."
Mr.. Wallace asserts positively That the
decision applies to the interest as well as
the principal Of debls created before the
passage of the legal tender act. Now, if
this is the state of the case, the law of
the land must be complied with, and
every one may as well prepare to face the
fact Then comes up next the great
question ''What does a receipt mean 2"
Is it conclusive against part payment, or
is it merely minute or memorandum of
a certain amount of money having passed
between two parties?