Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-08-30

MIR. Justice Miller dissented, and was Of
opinion that the language of the act was
broad enough to cover contract to paw
in gold coin. Mr.. Justice Davis concurred
that the contract TO pay gold coin did not
come within the terms Of The act.
Mr.. justice Swayne concurred with the
majority, saving MY opinion proceeds
entirely upon the language of the contract
and construction of the statutes. The
question of the constitutional power of
Congress does not arise" That is to say.
they decided that a d,bt PAYABLE in cold
could not be discharged IN greonbacks,
not because Congress did not have the con-
stitutional power to declare it should 90
but because IL had not exercised that
power.
In other words the Court did not think
that the act making greenbsoks a legal
tender was intended by Congress to apply
10 gold contracts.
But the same Court divided AGAIN. fol-
lowed up this decision by the celebrated
case OF Hepburn "a. Griswold. Wal; in
which IL declared that Congress mad no
| power 10 make greenbacks LEGAL tender
Thus decision being unsatisfactory TO
the Government the Court was enlarged
Is the addition Of one Judge. Then fol
lowed the cases of Knox "a. Lee and Parker
us. Davis in which the Court reversed the
Necttlcn OF hepburn c8. rrlSWOiu. ana de-
clared that the lcsal-tendcr acts wcre con-
stitu,ional. This is now the law of the
| land.
In the discussion Of oil these cases Il WAS
conceded on al. hands that the right to
mako gold and silver legsl-tenders In dis
charge OF all contracts payable IN any kind
Ct money Was power expressly conferred
| upou Congress by that article Of the Con-
stitution authorizing il to "coin money
nj 20 ,fa.o ko ~
Mr.. Justice Clifford, dissenting in the
cases last mentioned. remarked page 3S6.
! II Wal.)i "FereiGn coin Of gold and sill
yer may be made legal tender, as the
| power 10 regulate the value thereof 10
vested in Congress, as well as TO regulate
the vslue of the coins fabricated and
stamped at the mint"
The contention Of the minority was, in
the language of Chief-Justice Chase, who
delivered the dissenting opinion. that an
act making mere promises 10 paw dollars q
| legal tender IL payments of debts pre-
| viousiy contracted ~ not q meas apprO-
! pTlate, plainly adapted, really calculated
| 10 carry INTO effect any express power vest
! Ell IN Congress. Ia inconsistent with the
spirit OF the Constitution and Is pro-
/ libted by the Constitution"
OF course II was not contended by the
minority that il was expressly prohibited.
a~ Inpairing the obligation of contracts.
and inferred prohibition from tho fifth
amendment, which provides that no per-
son shall be deprived Of life. liberty, or
( property without compensation or due
process OF law.
Mr.. Justice Strong delivered the opinion
OF the majority He took the position that
Congress mad full power over the money
4 the country. That the obligation OF q
/ - r. tn .. - IL To " n b
the law sAall recognize az monsy when the
payment Is 10 he made" II said, II Wal.
page 81 mo Que ever doubted that a
debt of 81 900 contracted before 1894 could
be paid by one hundred eagles coined after
that year. though they contained no moro
! gold than ninety-four eagles such as were
/ coined when the contract was made"
Again, every contract for the payment
| II money simply is necessarily subject 10
! the constitutional power of the Govern
ment over the currency, and the Obliga-
rion Of the parties "a therefore assumed
with reference 70 that power. We have
| been asked whether Congress can declare
| that O contract 10 deliver quantity of
| grain may be satisfied hy the tender Of a
| less quantity? Undoubtedly not. But
| this "a q false analogy. There Ia wide
| distinction between q tender of quantities
or of specific articles and tender Of legal
values. Contracts for the delivery of
specific articles belong exclusively 10 the
| domain Of State legislation, while con-
! tracts for the payment OF money are sub
| iect 10 the authority OF Congress, at Toast
| so far as relates to the means OF payment
| He farther maintained that II II was an
act impslring the obligation Of the con-
! tract that il could not be- truly asserted
! that Congress may not by its action iEdi-
| rectlv impair the obligation of contracts,
| If by the expression is meant rendering
contracts fruitless or partially fruitless."
On page 3l2, II Wal. he farther says
IF then the legal tender acts were justly
| chargeable with impairlng contract oDll-
cations, they would not for that reason be
/ forbidden"
This was the opinion OF the Court. from
which IL is apparent that II the legal-ten-
der oct had in terms declared that green
| backs should te legal tender in payment
J - cold or silver debts, the majority Of the
| Court would have sustained its constltu-
| tiornlity. II farther evidence Of this Is
| peedful we Will find IT IN the opinion OF
Mr.. Justice Bradley, the new Judge, who
was added 10 the Court for the purpose OF
/ reversing Hepburn rs. Grlswold. On page
| 3l7 housed the following dec sive language
1T follows as a cOrollary from these
views that il makes no difference III the
! principle Of the thing, that the contract OF
/ The debtor is specific engagement III
terms TO pay gold or silver money or 10 pas
! in snacie. 80 long as the money OF the
country, in whatever terms described. is III
| contemplation OF the parties II is tue obgeei
! Of the legal-tender laws 70 make the credi'
/ Of the Goyernment lawfui SUBSTITUTE
/ therefor. II il is bona Jide for SO many
4 csrats Of diamonds or 80 many ounces OF
! IulIion the specific contract lpuht be per
/ formed. But II terms which naturally
I jmnort such . contract are used by, way OF
evasion and money only is interded the
law reaches the case. Not but that Goa.
r,ress nav limit the law In any WY II
/ pleased II might make al exception o.
Z cases where the contract expressly pro
! uoises gold and silver. BUY, II IL mas no.
/ done so; If the enactment IS genera ~ IA ~
term. specific promises 10 Pay the mohey
4 In so.cie are lust rs much subject 10 TIE
/ orsrat;on of the law Is mere promises u
/ pay 40 many dollars"
The constitutional objections whlch
/ we're urged with 30 much force asainst ,nt
mower OF Congress TO make treasury notes
a LEGAL tender IN payment OF pre-exlstina
! delfs do not apply 10 an oct maElng tiIvei
/ coin legal tender in payment OF all deO''
which are payable in gold or otherwise.
| The Constitution places goa ana sllVei
on the same footing, gives Con.tes po%Iv'
10 coin either one OF them 10 tne e1ciu
s,on OF the other. and TO regulate th(
value of either - that -, TO declare VIVA
IT'S value shall be as = legal tender: M,
osiect is TO call attention TO the tact ina
in The framing and discussion OF it, ire REQ
coinage bills. Congress hs, ignored th'
vsst iTnportance Of the question; 70 "hd
eI,ea, sha!l silver be legal tender ia pay
Inent Of debtsf .A 7 boxa ava,
soen made 10 this subject occurred whei
ia free.coinage act Was under consiue ~ .
ION in tho Senate last winter. Inc pll
rroyided IN general terms Just a. tn'
sreenback act did Is to greenbscks, tna
slver should DO legal tender IN payinen
Of al debts. n c-ov,
,icb and gray in the service oi nis couh
nv arose with all the dignity OF mono
,netslli.t panoplIed IN golden arnor, an'
- me tone Of great man who iahoie'
~ some injury might possoly oe IN
terd.d 10 the majestic interests Whlch ~
reure.ented. asked II bv that biu !, wa
Intended 10 make silver legal tehuer Il
, ,n,y Of contracts specifically payable
IN gold coin! T..
/ 80 tf-.ltaI chat il IL WAS N