The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1870-02-11
THE LEGAL.TEXDER ACT.
Congress Cannot Change the Standard
of Money.

EVlutb VI Gue nupEoHS NVuAb DCSASAOH'
In the case OF Hepburn against GriSwOld'
decided yesterday in tho Supreme Court
Of tho United Suites, the question was
whether GriswOld could be forced TO nc
Ccpt grecnback dollars in satisfaction Of II
debt for dollars in general, "lAwlul money
Of the United States" contracted before
the passage of the Legal. Tender Act Of
February %, 1852. This question was
decided in the negativcb by majority Of
the court; the judges standing four against
three Judge Grler, whose place Is now
vacant, Is understood to agree with the
majority,
The opinion Of the court was read by
Chicf:J Justice Chasc. It begins with the
general principle that the court must seek
to interpret the laws In accordance with
equity, when they will bear such con-
structiOn. Contracts made before the uct
making green lacks legal.tender were in
effect specific contracts for gold coin. III
this act applies to such contracts, there
fore, and Is valid, such contract might
have been satisfied ut one time by IL pay
n,cnt Of little more than One.thinl Of the
value for which It's tipulated, and at differ
ent rates Ut other times, according 10 the
depreciation of paper money. This would
clearly impair the obligation OF contracts,
and BIZ contrary OjustlCe and equity No
such construction cAn DO admitted, II any
other can be rccOnCiled with tue intent OF
Congress.
But there Is nothing in the act, nor even
in the debates on It, 10 suggest that Con
gress did not intend TO include existing
debts; and II cannot DO denied that tue
act, In lis terms, does mean to make green
backs lCgal tender for them. Had Con-
gress power, then, thus to change the
terms Of existing contracts!
Acts of Congress must bC held To be con-
stitutIOnAl unless the contrary is proved
and the court Is reluctant to discuss such
questions, but must respect the COnstitll'
ton US supreme. Here private rights are
concerned; the plaintilf Is entitled to coin
unless his right has been impaired by Il
Constitutional law. Two questions arise
1. Were the defendants relieved by the
act from tho obligations assumed in the
contract!
9, Could the plaintiff be compelled by
Judgment of the Court to receive IN Ely-
ment currency Oft different nature and
value from that which was in the cOntCm'
platiOn Of the parties when tho contract
was maleg
The Kentucky Court Of Appeals has
answered both in the negative, and these
decisions are hero for review.
The powers Of Congress, though extern
sivc, are limited by the Constitution which
grants them. The extension Of them by
Implication Is delicate, and may be danger
Gus. All powers implied, but not express
" granted by that instrument, IRE includ-
cd in the clause which cOnlcs power to
make all laws necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the powers ex.
pressly granted to Congress or vested by
the Constitution in the Government, or in
any of its departments or officers" And
these are limited by the reservation to the
States or to the people Of oil powers not
conferred on Congress nor prohibited to
the States.
There is no express grant of power to
make the paper legal tender Can It be
done under IN implied power? The rule
laid down by Chief Justice Marshall "A
Wheaton, 49l), is unquestiOncd
az Let the end be Legitimate, let Il be
within the scope Of the Constitution, and
all means which arc appropriate, which
are plainly adapted to TINT end, which
arc not prohibited, Inconsistent with the
letter and spirit Of the Constitution, are
constitutional. And again, in the same
opinion: Should Congress in the Gxccu-
ton Of its powers, adopt measures which
are prohibited by the Constitution; or
should Congress, under the prGtext of OK
ccutlng its powers, pass laws for the nc.
complishmCnt OF objects not intrustc1 10
the government, 1t would he the painful
duty Of this tribunal, should case re-
Quire such decision come before It, to
say TINT such an act was nOttle law Of the
land; hut where the law Is not prohibited
and is really calculated to effect any OF
the objects entrusted to the government |
to undertake here to inquire into the de-
gree of It's necessity would be 10 pass the
line which circumSCribcs the Judicial de-
partmcnt and tread on legislative ground"
Ibid, 493.J r.'
The power To establish a standard Of
money, rs of weights anil measures, Is iii.
qucstiOnably incidental to government
hut the power 10 change the legal tender
Is clearly not the same as the power 10
-, Ma 10 Il Ian N1,n |
power to issue bills Of credit, which Con-
gross has been held by this court to pos.
scss. They arc issued Onthc credit Of Ithe
United Suites, and mny he issued cileCtu-
ally without making them legal tender
Tho difference in power Is shown by the
ilCt TINT even the States may authorize
banks Of issue, hut cannot make their |
notes u legal tender.
1t Is urged that the Legal-Tender act Is
authorized, rs incidental TO the war pow
or, by the Constitution, when Il grants all
powers necessary and proper to carry its
general powers into execution. But how
Is the right to make Il new legal.tcndcr
necessary ind proper to that Of earring
on war! Such M argument proves too
much; for every other power Of Congress
involves the use Of money, and the power
to issue legal.tenlcrs might as reasonably
be derived from TINT Of opening post
roads or building postOftlCes, rs from that
Of war.pOwer, Nor can It be said that
this IL II question solely for Congress and
not for the courts, without saying that
Congress has exclusive Jurisdiction to de-
fine its own powers.
The court then reviewed the history of
the PAPER currency; dsaid mo one QucS-
tions tho general constitutiOnality, and
not very many, perhaps, tho general ex.
pcdicncy, Of the legislation by which
note currency has been authorized in re.
cent years. The doubt Is as to the power
to declare particular class of the notes
Ohc n lcgal-tendcr In payment Of pre-