The Hawaiian gazette., 1870-03-16

Tee LEGAL-TENDER ACT IMPERATIVE IN Pre-
EXISTING CoSTRAcTs.-When the Supreme Court
affirmed the validity of contracts specifically pay
able in coin entered into before the enactment Of
the legal-tender law. it was evident that the de-
eision indirectly affected the construction to be
put upon all pre-existing contracts. For prior
to the set Of February, 1862, gold formed the
only legal-tender; and promises 10 pay in the
lawful money Of the United States were as
clearly, at the time they we're made promises TO
pay in coin. as though that obligation we're ex-
pIieitIy expressed If specific coin contracts of
date before February, 1862. wersi not invalidated
by the law then enacted. it followed by parity
Of reasoning that all contracts of the same pc
rod were in effect. coin contracts, since none
else were known or contemplated. Whatever
legal teehnicalities might be found to obstruct
the action Of this Interpretation. logically and
morally it appeared clear and decisive
The judgment pronounced by Chief Justice
Chase, recently, is therefore not unexpected.
An obligation Incurred in 1860. but not maturing
until after the passage of the Legal-Iender law,
the debtor proposed 10 satisfy BY payment in
greenbaeks at their face value. The creditor de-
handed coin or its equivalent. and Kentucky
Court sustained bis demand on the ground that
the LegaI-tender act was unconstitutional This
vas the case lately decided A majority Of the
Supreme AD4it uDt4 tuaN itc at Cy1fu uot ducCt
the tenor OF contracts made before its passage
that it Eas not and could not be. retrospective
in it, operation and as q consequence. that an
obligation incurred before its enactment. must be
satisfied 10 the only money recognized when the
covenant was made
This decision in no manner involves the con
sfitutionality Of the Law itself On that point
the sole point relied upon By the Kentucky Court
Chief Justice Chase and bic colleagues are
silent. They deal only ~Ith the equity q the
case. and With the limitation Of the period at
which the potency Of the Legal-tender Law began
Iuferentialiy. indeed their conclusions like those
arriFed at IN previous judgment q the same
Court seem to concede It's e0nstitutlonaIify-
There 4oaId be no need for limitations Of tse
scope Of the Ian IN respect Of time If its eoDsii
iutionaIity IN regard to period subsequent 20 its
enactment were not 10 effect conceded Nothing
Ebatever has bees said. or can be fairly inferred,
Ehich warrants the opinion that the constitution
sliss Of the las itself Is impaired b. this judg-
ment-
Il il not necessary to discuss :he probable
effect d The Judgment upon unpaid obligations
Of date previous to 1862 or course II viii
disturb some calculations, and materially affect
many interests Bat those ebo profess tesee 10
II prefext for rspndzfion, whether o. the part
q individBals. corporations or States. assume
position as mischisvous a. that Of those who
EosH produce financial chaos By decreeiag the
1nc1nsfifutionsIity Of the Leesl-teBder act
There VII be hardship. alphabetically and n some
iasfances injustice. Bat the Judgment Of lie
Court rssfs upon an ineligible. If not IN agree
abb o. entirely 5Bdefensibie principle; the pro-
rnnleztion d which constitutes another Teason
for the resiOrztisn With all convenient speed; Of
specie payments. When ne get back to a hard
cash bssis tiess Conflicts Of interest and inter
pretation viii cease and not in then. ~