The Indianapolis journal., 1896-11-25
FOREIGN COIN AND LEGAL TENDER.

The rumor that the Kansas Legislature
may make the Mexican silver dollar le-
gai tender for the payment of debts in that
State has started some discussion as to the
possible effects of such action. A Wash
ington dispatch few days ago stated that
the opinion there was that the immediate
effect would be to bring the question of
the constitutionality of such law before
the Supreme Court. The Journal suggested
that, even if such law were constitu-
tional, its effect could easily be nullified by
the enactment of law by Congress fixing
the value of the Mexican dollar at it's bull
thinks even that would be unnecessary.
and assigns the following reason:
l find. by inspecting j. G. Carlise's IN
Paper Currency, Coin. Production OF
Precious Metals" ETC., that Section 1884 of
the Revised Statutes of the United States
legal tender in the United States. This in
formation. given by Secretary Carlisle. if
true. should silence forever that un- Amer
lean and unpatriotic threat by the Kansas
Legislature.
This is true. The section of the United
States statutes referred to does say: mo
IL
tender in payment of debts" This law was
passed in 1857. Always prior to that time
certain foreign coins, gold and silver, had
been legal tender at the values fixed by
Congress. The act of 1857 is valid and bind
ing until set aside by the Supreme Court.
The question still remains, though ii is
scarcely a practical question. whether a
la pcn1 ON
der within its limits, Notwithstanding the
act of Congress. If the Constitution per-
mits it, Congress could not prohibit it, The
Constitution says: mo State shall make
anything but gold and silver coin a tender
I'm payment of debts" This makes no dis
tinction between United States coin and
foreign coin. The question is, therefore,
whether in the absence of any express con-
stitutional provision to the contrary a
State can make foreign coin legal tender
in payment of debts the same as United
States coin. If State has such authority
under the Constitution, the act of 1857 de-
claring that mo foreign gold or silver coins
shall be legal tender in payment of debts, -
is unconstitutional. That is the very ques-
tion that would be raised for the decision
of the Supreme Court if Kansas or any
| other State should pass law making the
Mexican dollar legal tender in payment of
| debts. The point made by the Journal was
| that. even If such a law were constitu-
| tional, it's effect could be nullified by an
| act of Congress fixing the true value of the
| Mexican dollar. Even admitting the right
| of a State to make foreign coin legal ten
| der. 1t has no authority to place any fixed
| valuation upon it. The function of regulat-
| ing the value of foreign coin in the United
| States belongs to Congress exclusively.
| Even if the Supreme Court should hold
| that Kansas had right to make the Mex
| lean dollar legal tender. Congress could
nullify the law by passing an act fixing
/ the value of the Mexican dollar in the
| United States at 80 cents. The question is
not likely to take any practical shape, and
the discussion is chiefly interesting as an
incentive to careful reading of the Consti-