The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1870-02-08

adapted, or really calculated as a
means to any end. Let Us enquire,
then, first, whether the making of
bills Of credit legal lender to the eX-
tent indicated, is consistent with the
spirit Of the Constitution. Among
the great cardinal purposes of that IN
strument, no one is more consplcu
Gus or more venerable than the estab-
lshment Of Justice, and what was
intended by the establishment of JUS
tice in the minds Of the people who or
dained it is not, happily, a matter of
disputation. 1t is not left to inference
or conjecture, and especially In It's re-
lations to contracts, When the Con-
stitution was undergoing a discussion
In the Convention, the Congress of
Confederation was engaged IN the
consideration of ordinances for the
government of the territory north
west of the Ohio, the only territory
subject all that time to its regulation
and contract By this ordinance GER
tain Fundamental articles Of compact
were established between the original
States and the people and States
and Territories, for the purpose, to
use its own language, OF extending
the fundamental principles of civil
and religious liberty, whereon these
Republics, as the States united under
confederation, are built. Their laws
and constitutions are seTected among
these Fundamental principles. Was
this an unjust preservation of rights
and property? It is understood and
declared that no law ought ever be
made or have force in said Territory
that shall In any manner whatever
interfere with or affect private con-
tracts or engagements, bona tide and
without fraud, previously formed.
The same principles, Ia more con-
densed expression, are found in that
most valuable provision of the Con-
stitution Of the United States,
ever recognized as an efficient
safeguard against intrigue, that
no State shall pass any law impairing
the obligation of contracts. Ii is true
that this prohibition is not applied in
terms to the Government of the
United States. Congress has the ex-
press power 10 enact bankrupt laws,
and we do not see that law made in
execution of any other express power,
which incidentally impairs the obliga-
unconstitutional for that reason, but
we think it clear that those who
framed and those who adopted the
Constitution intended that the spirit
of this prohibition should pervade
the entire body of legislation, and
that justice which the Constitution
was ordained to establish, was not
thought by them to be consistent
with legislation of an opposite ten
dency. In other words, we cannot
doubt that law made In pursuance
of an express power, which
necessarily, and IN its direct opera
tions, impairs the obligations Of the
contract, and is inconsistent with the
spirit of the Constitution.
Another provision found In the
Fifth Amendment must be considered |
in this connection. We refer to that |
which ordains that private property
shall not be taken for public use with !
out compensation. This provision is
bids legislation imposing the obliga-
tions of contracts; but unlike that, it |
is addressed directly and solely to the /
National Government. 1t does not, /
in terms, prohibit legislation which |
the private property of |
one class of citizens to the use of /
another class, but if such property /
cannot be taken for the benefits of all |
without compensation, it is difficult to |
how it can be so taken for /
the benefit of part without violating |
the spirit of the prohibition. But there |
is another provision In the same /
amendment which, In our judgment, |
houo &c gy1 II fOran
ed effect unless construed as a direct |
prohibition of the legislation which |
we have been considering. 1t is that |
which declares that no person shall |
be deprived of life, liberty or prop
erty without due process of law. 1t |
is not doubted that all the provisions |
of the amendment operate directly in |
limitation and restraint of legislative |
powers conferred by the Constitution.
The only question is, whether it is an
act which compels all those who hold |
contracts for the payment of gold or |
silver money, to accept in payment |
currency of inferior value, deprives |
such persons of property without due
process of law. 1t is quite clear
that whatever may be the operation |
of such IN act, due process of law
makes no part of it. Does it deprive |
any person of property? A very !
large proportion of the property of |
civilized men exists in the form of |
contracts. These contracts almost |
invariably stipulate for payment of |
money, and we have already seen that |
contracts in the United States, prior |
to the act under consideration for |
payment OF money, were contracts to |
pay sums specified in gold and silver |
coin, and it is beyond doubt that
holders OF these contracts were and |
are fully entitled to protection of the |
Constitutional provision as holders of |
any other description of property. |
But 1t may be said that holders of no |
description of property are protected |
by 1t from legislation, which incident |
ally only impairs its value, and it may |
be urged In illustration that holders |
OF stocks OF a turnpike, or manufac-
turing corporation, or insurance COM
pany, or bank, can not authorize |
similar works or corporations to re- /
duce their price in the market. But |
all TINS does not appear to meet the |
real difficulty in the cases mentioned. |
1t is purely contingent and incidental |
IN the case We are considering. It is |
direct and inevitable that if in the |
case mentioned the holder of stock |
was required to convey it on demand |
to any one who should think fit to |
otter half value for it, analogy would |
be more obvious. No one, probably, |
could be found to contend that an |
act enforcing the acceptance Of fifty |
or seVenty-five acres of land in salts |
faction OF q contract to convey one |
hundred acres, would not come |