New-York tribune., 1876-02-29
NCw-yoRK DAILY TRIBUNE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY %, 1876

and costs were paid in gold coin, but request
was arterward made for a rehearing, which
was informally refused in letter written by
Judge Ward Hunt, as recently as Jan. II, 1874.
The original decision, and that OF the Circuit
Court, it will be noticed, were prior to the first
Supreme Court decision on the LeSal-tender
act Hepbun agt Griswold) that the lega-ten-
der clause could not constitutionally be made
TO apply TO debts contracted before the passage
of the act the affirming decree of the Supreme
Court, 1t will also be noticed, was gwen abou'
three months after the second and reversing
decision of the same Court had been procured
on the Legal-tcndcr act, iii Knox agt. Lee. The
first of the two celebrated decisions exempted
existing contracts from the operation OF the
legal tender clause the second virtually de-
clared the paper to be constitutional money,
payable in satisfaction of all debts no matter
when contracted; the Ocean Spray decision,
made originally before the Legal-tender had
been IasSed upon, was affirmed without com
ment after the Legal-tcnder act had just been
deliberately sustained.
Now what is the effect Of this decisions
Legal tender is not something which man Is
whatever will discharge n debt already exist
ing. The owners Of the Ocean Spray were held,
by decision of the courts, to have incurred
debt by their vessel striking another; paper was
then by law legal tender for debts; the
courts decreed payment III gold dollars; the
courts afterward declared the paper good for
all debts; then the same Supreme Court af-
frmed the decision that paper would not an
swer for this particular debt. The grounds Tor
the decision were not stated, but we are shut
ND to one of these conclusions: 0D That there
was no contract and no debt at all III this
case; or (2) tnat there was something peculiar
and not apparent, in the case; or (3) that the
Supreme Court affirmed a decision without
noticing what the affirmation meant; or (D
that the Court deliberately reversed the de-
cision it had just made sustaining the Legal
tender act. If there was no contract ard no
debt. but only decree 70 pay dollars" the
meaning must be that one who has dollars 10
pay must pay coin dollars and this is ONLY
another form of stating the proposition that
nothing but gold is legal tender. Ii this IS
the law as at present interpreted, then the
Court has again, whether intending to do so
or not turned upon its own record, and has
swept the Legal-tendcr act out of existence.
I'm that case, coin is now as it was before the
war; the sole legal tender because the sole
money; dollar is specified quality and
quantity of gold; and whoever has dollars
coming tc him can demand them in gold, and
command all the courts to sustain him. On
this view, the tender of paper will discharge
no debt, the Legal-tendcr act is null and void,
and the acceptance of paper on any obligation
Al.
grace. or the Indifference of the creditor, SO
that we can all begin TO exact gold payments
us soon as we please. But is this true ! We
can only say that tho Court appears to have
80 decided.
There il another interesting question in
volved in tho standing Of the notes themselves
as by their own interpreted law. The Supreme
Court in the second decision. particularly in
the opinion OF Judge Bradley, emphatically
urged the cxicency of war, and took the
ground that tho issue of legal-tender paper
could be resortcd TO only in war time, and
could not be continued after that exigency
ceased Accordingly il has been unanswcr-
ably urged during the last few years that the
Court would certainly refuse to sustain addi-
tional issues now in time of peace. But the
original greenbachs long ago disappeared, and
those now in circulation are of no older series
than 1869. l. not the putting out Of these
new series notes really the issue Of legal ten
ders in time of peace, and can the Supreme
Court sustain their cOnstituti0nality We have
recently heard of real estate owner in this
city who, having accepted paper under protest
in payment of rent under lease made out
twenty years ago, has now brought suit for
reinbur .ement, claiming that he has not had
full payment; and not to go back Of 1869, II
very large demand for accounting may yet be
made by old-fa~h0ned lessons aud other cred
itors who have never learned To transfer their
affections To grecnbacks. Very clearly the
Supreme Court has by no means done with
the grecnback plague. For there is now no
settled law on the subject; what there is was
dictated by temporIzng eXpedicncy, and at
tempted to make dollar in fact out of a dol
lar in law, and there aie men enough who
have become thoroughly tired of waiting and
are of II mind to find out what the " dollar
really is.