The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-01-03
THE LEGAL-TENDER NOTES.
Position Of the LOng-Pending Test Case
Before the Supreme Court.
Failure to Secure a DecsiOn-The Door Open
for Repeal of the National Banking
Law-HistOry of the Case.

Washington Correspondence New York Herald.
A case has been before the Supreme Court for
some years, involving the question whether re-
issue of legaltender notes in time of peace is
constitutional The suit was brought by Mr.. s.
B. Chittenden, then member of Congress from
Brooklyn. Senator Edmunds and Mr.. William
Allen Butler were retained by him, and opposed
to them was General B. F. Butler of Massachu-
setts The following memorandum, which has
been sent to your correspondent, states the pres
ent position of the suit, which seems to be on its
last legs. The court appears to be disinclined to
hear argument on the merits:
''The counsel in the legal tender case have ar
ranged to submit the cause on the record and
briefs already filed without oral argument. This
course has been decided on in view of the fact
that the full discussion of the main question
involved, which affects the validity of the whole
volume of reissued legal tender notes debt
paying medium, ought not to be entered if
any technical questions i'll the case are to con
troll the decision of the court. motion to
amend the record so as to avoid any such ques-
tons made at the opening of the term both
parties uniting In 1t. but the court denied the
motion. The cause was assigned for day in
January, and in order to put the court fully i'll
possession of it the submission will be made and
an oral argument will doubtless be ordered for
some future day if the way is found clear for a
hearing on the merits"
The question of legal tender, one of the most
important affecting the interests of the country
at large, is therefore flung upon Congress, and it
becomes an interesting problem what Democrats
will do with it, 1t is not impossible that the
failure of the attempt to get decision from the
Supreme Court will open the door to a move
ment which would have considerable strength III
both houseJ, to repeal the national bank act
make the entire paper currency of the country
government or 'greenback' ISSUE but take away
from such issue the legal tender quality. Mr..
Buckner chairman of the banking and currency
committee, would, it is thought, favor such
measure. He believes a circulation of coin
or paper based on coin, and paper
money based on and convertible at will
into coin, does not need to be made legal
tender by act Of Congress, because no one will
refuse it. 1t would be odd if the failure of the
Supreme Court to decide this test case of legal
tender should give those Western and Southern
men of both parties who are opposed to the ma
tional banking system and prefer greenbacks the
opportunity for establishing greenback cur
rency not legal tender. There is but little doubt
that the offer to make repeal of the legalten
der clause part of bill to establish an eXclu
sively greenback of government paper currency
would bring to the support of such measure a
considerable influence otherwise favorable to the
banks.
The history of the legal-tender test case was
given in the Herald of March g. 1879 and is of
interest now 1t is as follows;
The agreement between Mr.. Chittenden, mem
II. Is.
F. Butler to carry to the Supreme Court case
on which that court shall have to decide on the
constitutional power of the government to issue
legatender notes in time of peace, has been
der private discussion for some time. Mr. Chit
tenden interested himself in the undertaking to
have this question judicially settled so long ago
as June, 1878. He found great hesitation. even
among persons who agreed with him. to assist in
the matter. But Senator Edmunds agreed some
months ago to serve as associate counsel in pre-
and "A before
Court, and Dir. William Allen Butler was
tanned by Mr.. Chittenden of counsel at the same
time, A suggestion was made to Mr. Peter
Cooper to undertake the expense of the green
back side of the suit, but he seemed unwilling to
do so account of his great age and growing
infirnities Mr.. Chittenden asked General But
Ter to take up the cause of legal tender, which
the General very frankly did
The Supreme Court decided in February. 1869,
that coin contracts are valid and can be en-
forced, the case being Bronson against Rhodes.
In February, 1870, it decided, in Hepburn
against Griswold that all contracts payable in
dollars and made prior to the 25th of February,
1862 the date of the legal-tender act, must be
paid in coin or its equivalent. Its words were
as follows
I'VE are obliged to conclude that an act max
ing mere promises to pay dollars d legal tender
in payment of debts previously contracted is not
"a means appropriate, plainly adapted, really cal
culated to carry into effect any express power
vested in Congress- that such an act is inconsist
ent with the spirit of the constitution, and that
it is prohibited by the constitution"
The Supreme Court consisted then of eight
judges-Chief Justice Chase andJustices Nelson,
GIier, Clifford and Field, who united in the
above decision, and Justices Swayne Miller and
Davis. These latter held in their dissenting
opinion that the legaltender act was justified
by the extreme eXigency Of the war and the
necessity of the government saving itself from
destruction
Later the bench was filed up by the appoint
c 81
question was reopened at the instance of At
torney- general Hoar, and the court in the case
of Knox against Lee reversed the previous de
csion and decided that the egal-tender act APP
piled to contracts made before its passage, as
well as after The decision is in these words;
1--WE hold the acts of Congress constitutional,
as applied to contracts made either before or
after their passage In so holding we overrule
so much of what was decided in Hepburn VS..
Griswold as ruled the acts unwarranted by the
constitution so far as they apply to contracts
made before their enactment. That case was
decided by divided court, and by court hav-
ing a less number of judges than the law then
in existence provided this court shall have"
In this opinion five of the nine judges con
Cured. They were Justices Swayne, Miller
Davis, Strong and Bradley. Chief Justic Chase
and Justices Nelson, Clifford and Field pre-
sented a dissenting opinion, in which they said:
'We have no hesitation, therefore in declaring
our conviction that the making of these notes
legal tender was not necessary proper
means to the carrying on war, or to the exercise
of any express power of the government"
The questions raised in the case presented by
Mr. Chittenden and General Butler are under
stood to be different from any already acted on
and decided by the court. In this particular
they will not involve, but on the contrary ex-
clude, the war power or the right of the govern
ment as a means of self defense in time of war
to give to its notes a egal-tender quality. The
case comes in such shape that the court must
decide
First-Whether or no Congress under the con
stitution can in time of peace give to treasury
notes the quality of legal-tender for private
debts.
Second-Whether reissue of legal-tender
note the original of which was dated before the
closing of the war does not lose the legal-tender
quality.
And finally it is intended of course to so pre-,
sent the case that the court shall decide whether
or no Congress can constitutionaly order the
,niss11n lnnal tander nntas after theu hava hee