The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1893-10-04
TIE MONEY QUESTION.
Decisions of the Supreme Court Upon the
Subject Of Money.

clslons respecting the legal tender acts
OF 1862 and 1868. In complying with
this request, we cannot do better than
publish an extract from the speech Of
Senator Allen in the United States sem
ate August "a, in which he quotes lib
orally from those decisions. We give
the quotations just as they appear in the
Congressional Record, except that in the
case of Knox vs.. Lee and Barker vs..
Davis we give more Of the decision than
is quoted by Mr.. Allen. In doing this
we have simply inserted the additional
paragraphs in the order in which they
occur.
The decisions quoted are, perhaps, a
little broader in their scope than was
contemplated by our correspondent, but
not too broad to afford full information
upon the subject:
In the case Of Warnibold vs.. SChlietiDg,
16 Iowa, 243, the plaintiff had given the de-
fendant a rromisSOry note payable in
"United States gold" After the note was
given, and before il became due, the aot of
congress Of February 25, 1852, became a law,
and under it legal tender notes were issued.
When the note became due the plaintiff
rendered the defendant United States treas.
uPy notes, which were refused, and there
upon the plaintiff brought an action to
cancel the note and the trust deed given to
secure its payment.
In holding the tender good and granting
the relief prayed, the supreme court Of
Iowa, by Wright, chief Justice, a distin-
guished jurist, and for many years mem
ber Of this body, on page 251 Of the report,
uses this language:
"GOld may Auctuate in the market; there
may be demand for it for the most legiti-
mate purposes; gamblers may speculate in
it at the risk Of sacrificing the financial, if
not the dearer, interests and life Of the ma
tion, and yet, when the legal test is applied,
each dollar Of every mode or form Of cur
renCy declared to be legal tender has the
same value without reference TO the ma
terial Of which il is composed. And we can
not resist the remark that the sooner that
this is known, accepted, and acted upon, the
better il will be for national, monetary, and
political integrity, as well as for individual
and general morality, prosperity, and sue
oess."
Mr.. MoPherson--I should like to ask the
senator from Nebraska a single question, if
il will not interfere with him.
Mr.. Certainly.
Mr.. McPherson-Does the power granted 4
in the constitution to congress to coin
money and regulate the value thereof mean
such regulation Of the value Of money as
provided by the constitution that one coin
may be made worth 100 cents and another
coin 60 cents, and they shall circulate har-
moniously together as money! Was it in
contemplation that, instead of carrying out
the DEGREES Of nature, congress may arbi-
trarily make decree which is against it3
Mr.. Allen-My speech as proceed will
answer the senator's question.
The court Of appeals of New York in 1868,
in the case Of The Metropolitan Bank vs..
Van Dyok, and in the case Of Meyer vs.
Roosefelt, q New York, page 400, passed
upon the conshtutionslity of the act Of con-
gress, February 25, 1862, creating legal ten
der treasury notes.
In that case q state bank had issued a
note, payable In lawful money Of the
United States. This note was presented for
payment, and legal tender treasury notes
were rendered By the bank TO the holder,
and they were refused.
In an antion hrnnahk 70 rAonYar the court