The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-04
The Supreme Court Afirms the COnsti-
nationality Of the Act Of 1873.
The Opinion Approved by All the Justices
Except Mr., Field, Who Dissents-0ther
Important Decisions Rendered.
THE LEGAL-TENDER CASES.
The Supreme Court Affirms the Constitution
ality of the GreenbaeIks.

VS.. InOnaS >. FREEMAN Drought mere
by writ of error from the Circuit Court of
the UniteSf States for the Southern district of
New York. The question presented by this
case, as stated by the court, is whether notes of
the United States issued in time of
war, under acts of Congress declaring
them legal tender for payment of private
debts and afterward in time of peace
deemed and paid in gold coin at the Treasury,
and then ressued under the act OF 1873 can, under
the constitution of the United States, be legal
tender in payment of such debts The court is
unanimously of the opinion that the present case
cannot be distinguished in principle from cases
heretofore decided and reported under the names
of ''Legal-tender Cases ~ Wall, 49,, Dooley
VS.. Smith (13 Wall, 6O4. J. Railroad Company VS.,
johnson Us Wall, 1885, and Mary
land VS.. the Railroad Company 20 Wall,
1857 and all of the the justices, except Justice
Field who adheres to the views expressed in his
dissenting opinions in those cases, of opinion
that they were rightly decided. The court holds,
therefore, that Congress has power to issue obi
cations of the United States in such form and to
impress upon them such qualities as currency
for the purchase of merchandise and payment of
debts, in accord with the usage of sovereign
government. The power is incident to the
power of borrowing money and issuing bills and
notes OF the government for money borrowed. The
iInpreSSng upon those bills or notes of the quality
of beings legal tender for payment of private
debts, was power universally understood to be-
long to sovereignty in Europe and America at
the time of the framing and adoption of the Con
StitutiOn of the United States This mower of
making notes of the United States legal tender
in payment of private debts being included
in the power to borrow money and to
provide national currency, is not defeated or
restricted by the fact that its exercise may affect
Of foip
and just Interpretation Of the whole Constitution
a partcularpower or authority appears to be vest
ed in Congress- it is no constitutional objection to
its existence, or to the exercise of that power
that contracts of individuals may be incidentally
affected.
Congress" the court says in conclusion, 'as
the legislative sovereign Of the nation being ex-
pressly empowered by the Constitution to levy
and collect. taxes to pay debts and provide for
the common defense and general welfare of the
United States. and to borrow money on the
credit of the United States and to coin money
and regulate the value thereof and of foreign
coin and being clearly authorized as Incl
dental to the exercise of these great pow
ers, to emit bills of credit, TO charter
national banks, and to provide a national cur
rency for the whole people in the form of coin,
Treasury notes and national bank bills, and the
power to make notes of the government legal
tender in the payment of private debts being
one of the powers belonging to sovereignty
IN other civilized nations, and not expressly
are irresitibly impeled to the conclusion that the
impressing upon Treasury notes of the United
States of the quality of being legal tender in pay
ment of private debts is appropriate means,
conducive and plainly adapted to the execution
of the undoubted powers of Congress. consistent
with the letter and spirit of the Constitution
and, therefore, within the meaning of that in
strument, necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the powers vested by the
Constitution in the government of the
United States. Such being our conclusion
i'll matter of law, the question whether at any
particular time, In war or peace, the eXigency is
such, by reason of unusual and pressing de-
mands on the resources of the government, or of
the inadequaey of the supply of gold and silver
coin to furnish the currency needed for the uses
of the government and of the people, that it is,
as matter of fact wise and expedient to resort
to this means is political question, to be deter
mined by Congress when the question of ext
gency arose, and not a judicial question, to be
afterwards passed upon by the courts, it follows
that the act of May 81, 1873, is constitutional
and valid and that the Circuit Court rightly
held that tender in treasury notes reissued and
kept in circulation under that act was a tender
OF lawful money in payment Of the defendants
Judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed
Opinion by Justice Gray, Justice Field dissent
ing.
JUSTICE FIELDS DISSENTING OPINION.
Justice Field, in long and carefully prepared
opinion dissents from the judgment of the court
and from all the arguments advanced in its sup
port eff there be anything, he says, Sin the
history of the Constitution which can be estab-
lished with moral certainty, it is that the franz
ers of that instrument intended to prohibit legal
tender notes both by the general governmentand
by the States. The argument presented to the
court by the advocates of the LEGAL fender
amounts to this The object of borrowing is to
raise funds; the anneXing of the quality of legal
tender to notes of the government will induce
parties to take them, and the funds will thereby
be more rapidly loaned. But the same thing
may be said of the annexation of any other pro
vision which would give to the holders some
advantage, as for instance provision that the
notes OF the government should serve as a free
ticket on public conveyances OF the country or
give free ingress to places of amusement, or en-
title him to percentage from the property of
private corporations. The same consequences
"a ready acceptance of notes-would follow
and yet no one would pretend that an
nexation provisions of this Kind with respect
to property would be in any sense
an appropriate measure to the execution
of power TO borrow. There is 10 invasion by
the government of the rights of third parties
which may not thus be sanctioned under the
pretense that it is an allowance which will lead
to the ready acceptance of the governments
notes and produce the desired loan"
In conclusion Justice Field says: "From the
decision of the court see only evil likely to fol-
low. If Congress has power to make notes of
the United States legal-tender and to make them
pass as money, it may be asked what necessity
was there to invest it by the Constitution with
power to borrow money. If it can make money.
why borrow it, and if the notes of the United
States, with legal-tender quality, are money or
equivalent to money, why should
Congress not at once issue
a sufficient amount to pay all the bonds of the
United Statesl Why pay interest on thousand
million dollars of bonds when it can In one day
make money to pay them9 1t would not, in
deed surprise me if there be call from many
quarters upon the government to issue such
notes for bonds. Who can object to it if the
doctrine declared by the court is sound! And
why should there be any restraint upon the un-
imaginary schemes of public improvement if the
printing press furnish all the money that is
needed for theml"