Evening star., 1935-02-19

This obligation must be fairly con-
strued. The present standard OF
value" stood in contradistinction to q
lower standard of value, We
think that the reasonable import of
the promise Is that 1t was intended to
assure one who lent his money to the
Government and took its bond that he
would not suffer loss through depre-
citation in the medium of payment.
The question is necessarily pre-
sented whether the Joint resolution
of June 5, 1888, is a valid enactment
so far as it applies to the obligations
of the United States,
There is no question as to the power
of the Congress to regulate the value
of money, that is, to establish a none
tary system and thus to determine
the currency Of the country. The ques-
ton is whether the Congress can use
that power so as to invalidate the
terms of the obligations which the
Government has heretofore issued in
money on the credit Of the United
States.
We do not so read the Constitu-
ton. There Is a clear distinction be-
tween the power of the Congress to
control or interdict the contracts of
private parties when they interfere
with the exercise of it's constitutional
authority and the power of the Con-
gress to alter or repudiate the sub
stance of its own engagements when
it has borrowed money under the
authority which the Constitution con-
ferS.
When the United States with con-
stitutional authority makes contracts
it has rights and incurs RESPONSE
bilities similar to those of individuals
who are parties to such instruments.
We conclude that the joint reso-
luction of June S, 1888, in so far as
it attempted to override the obliga-
ton created by the bond in sooth
went beyond the congressional power.
In this view of the binding quality
of the Governments obligations, we
come to the question as to the plain
tiff's right TO recover damages. That
is a distinct question. Because the
Government is not at liberty to alter
or repudiate its obligations, it does
not follow that the claim advanced
by the plaintiff should be sustained.
The action is for breach of contract.
| AS a remedy for the breach, plain
| tiff can recover no more than the
/ loss he has suffered and of which he
may rightfully complain. He is not
| entitled to be enriched.
Plaintiff seeks Judgment for $16,-
93l.25 in present legal tender cur
rency on his bond for $4,000. The
question is whether he has shown
damage to that extent, or any actual
damage, as the Court of Claims has
no authority to entertain an action
for nominal damages.
The change in the weight Of the
gold dollar did not necessarily cause
loss to the plaintiff of the amount
claimed. The question of actual loss
cannot fairly be determined without
considering the economic situation at
the time the Government offered to
pay him the $4,000, the face of his
bond, In legal tender currency. The
case is not the same as If gold coin
had remained in circulation.
Plaintiff demands the equivalent
In currency Of the gold coin promised
But equivalent" cannot mean more
than the amount of money which the
promised gold coin would be worth
to the bondholder for the purposes
for which it could be legally used
That equivalence or worth could moi
| properly be aScertained save in the
| light OF the domestic and restricted
market which the Congress has law
fully established.
Plaintiff has not shown, or at
tempted to show, that in relation to
buying power he has sustained any
loss whatever. Plaintiff seeks
to make his case solely upon the
theory that by reason of the change
in the weight of the dollar he Il
entitled to sl.69 in the present cur
rency for every dollar promised by
the bond, regardless of any actual
loss he has suffered with respect to
any transaction in which his dollars
may be used. We think that position
Is untenable.