Court Opinion

ID: 9416824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:56:43.101483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:33.139296
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD,
dissenting:
Money, in the constitutional sense, means coins of gold and silver, fabricated and stamped by authority of law as a measure of value, pursuant to the power vested in Congress by the Constitution.*
■ Coins of copper may also be minted for small fractional circulation, as authorized by law and the usage of the government for eighty years, but it is not necessary to discuss that topic at large in this investigation.†
Even the authority of Congress upon the general subject does not extend beyond the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin.‡
Express power is also conferred upon Congress to fix the standard of weights and measures, and of course that standard, as applied to- future transactions, may be varied or changed to promote the public interest, but the grant of power in respect to the standard of value is expressed in more guarded language, and the grant is much more restricted.
Power to fix the standard of weights and measures is evidently a power, of comparatively wide discretion, but the power to regulate the value of the money authorized by the Constitution to be coined is a definite and precise grant of power, admitting of very little discretion in its exercise, and is not equivalent, except to a very limited extent, to the power to fix the standard of weights and measures, as the money authorized by that clause of the.Constitution is coined money, and as a necessary consequence.must be money of actual value, fabricated from the precious metals generally used for that purpose at the period when the Constitution was framed.
*588Coined money, such as is authorized by that clause of the instrument, consists only of the coins of the United States fabricated and stamped by authority of law, and is the same money as that described in the next clause of the same section as the current coins of the United States, and is the same money also as “the gold and silver coins” described in the tenth section of the'same article, which prohibits the States from coining money, emitting bills of crédit, or making “ anything but gold and silver coin a tender iu paymeut' of debts.”
Intrinsic value exists in gold and silver, as well before as after it is fabricated and stamped as coin, which shows conclusively, that the principal discretion vested in Congress under that clause of the Constitution consists in the power to determine the denomination, fineness, or value and description of the coins .to be struck, and the relative proportion of gold or silver, whether standard or pure, and the proportion of alloy to be used in minting-the coins, and . to prescribe the mode in which the intended object of the grant shall be accomplished and carried into practical effect.
■ Discretion, to some extent, in prescribing the value of the coins minted, is beyond doubt vested in Congress, but the plain intent of the Constitution is that-Congress, in determining that matter, shall be governed chiefly- by the weight and intrinsic value of the coins, as it is clear that if the-stamped value of the same should much exceed the real value of gold and silver not coined, the minted coins would, immediately cease tó be either-current coins or a standard of value as contemplated by the Constitution.* Commercial transactions imperiously require a standard of value, and the commercial world, at a very early period iu civilization, adopted gold and silver as the true standard for that purpose, and the standard originally adopted has evei; since continued to be so regarded by universal consent to the present time.
Paper emissions have, at one time or another, been authorized and employed as currency by most commercial nations,- *589and by no government, past or present, more extensively than by the Unitbd States, and yet it is safe to affirm that all experience in its use as a circulating medium has demonstrated the proposition that it cannot by. any legislation, however stringent, be made a. standard of value or the just equivalent of gold and silver. Attempts of the kind have always failed, and no body of men, whether in public or private stations, ever had more instructive' teachings of the truth of that remark than the patriotic men who framed the Federal Constitution, as they had seen the power to emit bills of credit freely exercised during the war of the Revolution, not only by the Confederation, but also by the States, and knew from, bitter experience its calamitous effects and the utter worthlessness of such a circulating medium as a standard of value. Such men so instructed could not have done otherwise than they did do, which was to provide an irrepealable standard of value, to be coined from gold and silver, leaving as little upon the subject to the discretion of Congress as was consistent with a wise forecast and an invincible determination that the essential principles of the Constitution should be perpetual as the means to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.
Associated as the grant to coin money and regulate the value thereof is with the grant to fix the standard of weights and measures, the conclusion, when that fact is properly weighed in connection with the words of the grant, is irresistible that the purpose of the framers of the Constitution was to provide a permanent standard of value which should, at all times and under all circumstances, consist of coin, fabricated and stamped, from gold and silver, by authority of law, and that they intended at the same time to withhold from Congress, as well as from the States, the power to substitute any other money as a standard of value in matters of finance, business, trade, or commerce.
Support to that view may also be drawn from the last words of the clause giving Congress the unrestricted power to regulate the value of foreign coin, as it would be difficult if not impossible to give full effect to the standard of value *590prescribed by the Constitution, in times of fluctuation, if the circulating medium could be supplied by foreign coins not subject to any congressional regulation as to their value. •
Exclusive power to regulate the alloy and value of the coin struck by their own authority, or by the authority of the States, was vested' in Congress under the Confederation, but the Congress was prohibited' from euacting any regulation as to the value of the coins unless nine States assented to the proposed regulation.
Subject to the power of Congress to pass such regulations it is unquestionably true that the States, under the Confederation as well as the United States, possessed the power to coin money, but the Constitution, when it /was adopted, denied to the States all authority upon the subject, and also ordained that they should not make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.
Beyond all doubt the framers of the Constitution intended that the money unit of the United States, for measuring values, should be one dollar, a3 the word dollar in the plural form is employed in the body of the Constitution, and also in the seventh amendment, recommended by Congress at its first session after the Constitution was adopted. Two years before that, to wit, July 6, 1785, the Congress of the Confederation enacted that the money unit of the United States should “ be one dollar,” and one year later, to wit, August 8, 1786, they established -the standard for gold and silver, and also provided that the money of account of the United States should correspond with the coins established by law>*
On the 4th of March, 1789, Congress first assembled under the Constitution, and proceeded without unnecessary delay to enact such laws as were necessary to put the government in operation which the Constitution had ordained and established. Ordinances had been passed during the Confedera*591tion to organize the executive departments, and for the establishment of a mint, but the new Constitution did not perpetuate any of those laws, and yet Congress continued to legislate for a period of three years before any new law was passed prescribing the money unit or the money of account, either for “ the public offices ” or for the courts. Throughout that period it must have been understood that those matters were impliedly regulated by the Constitution, as tariffs were enacted, tonnage duties imposed, laws passed for the collection of duties, the several executive departments created, and the judiciary of the United States organized and empowered to exercise full jurisdiction under the Constitution.
Duties of tonnage and import duties were required, by the act of the 31st of July, 1789, to be paid “in gold and silver coin,” and Congress in the same act adopted comprehensive regulations as to the value of foreign coin, but no provision was made for coining money or for a standard of value, except so far as that subject is involved in the regu- • lation as to the value of foreign coin, or for a money unit, nor was any regulation prescribed as to the money of account. Revenue for the support of the government, uuder those regulations, -was tó be derived solely from duties of tonnage and import duties, and the express provision was that those' duties should be collected in gold and silver coin.*
Legislation under the Constitution had proceeded thus far before the Treasury Department was created. Treasury regulations for the collection, safe-keeping, and disbursement of the public moneys became indispensable, and Congress, on the 2d September, 1789, passed the act to establish the Treasury Department, which has ever since remained in force.† By that act}, the Secretary of the Treasury is declared to be the head of the department, and it is made his duty, among other things, to digest and prepare plans for the improvement and management of the public finances *592and for the support of the public credit; to prepare and report estimates of the public revenue and of the public expenditures; to superintend the collection .of the revenue; to prescribe forms of keeping and stating accounts and for making returns; to grant all warrants for moneys to be issued from the treasury, in pursuance of appropriations by law, and to perform all such services relative to the finances as he shall be directed to perform.
Moneys collected from duties of tonnage and from import duties constituted at that period the entire resources of the national treasury, and the antecedent act of Congress, providing for the collection of those duties, imperatively required that all such duties should be paid in gold ami silver coin, from which it follows that the moneys mentioned in the act creating the Treasury Department were moneys of gold and silver coin' which were collected as public revenue from the duties of tonnage and import duties imposed by the before-mentioned prior acts of Congress. Appropriations made by Congress were understood as appropriations of moneys in the treasury, and all warrants issued by the Secretary of the Treasury were understood to be warrants for the payment of gold and silver coin. Forms for keeping and stating accounts, and for making returns and for warrants for'moneys to.be issued from the treasury were prescribed, and in all those forms the Secretary of the Treasury adopted the money unit recognized in the Constitution,and which had been ordained four years before by the Congress of the Confederation,
Argument to show that the national treasury was organized on the basis that the gold and silver coins of the United States wore to be the standard of value is unnecessary, as it is a historical fact which no man or body of men can ever successfully contradict. Public attention had been directed to the necessity of establishing a mint for the coinage of gold and silver, several years before the Convention met to frame the Constitution, and a committee was appointed by the Congress of the Confederation to consider and report upon the subject. They reported on the 21st February, *5931782, more than a year before the treaty of peace, in -favor of creating such an establishment, and on the 16th of October, 1786, the Congress adopted an ordinance providing that a mint should be established for the coinage of gold, silver, and copper, agreeably to the resolves of Congress previously mentioned, which prescribed the standard of gold and silrer, and recognized the money unit established by the resolves passed in the preceding year.* •
Congressional legislation organizing the new government had now progressed to the poi'nt where it became necessary to re-examine that subject and to make provision for the exercise of the power to coin money, as. authorized by the Constitution. Pursuant to that power Congress, on April' 2d, 1792, passed the act establishing a mint for the purpose of a national coinage, and made provision, among other things, that coins of gold and silver, of certain fineness and weight, and of certain, denominations, value and descriptions, should be from time to time struck and coined at the said mint. Specific provision is there made for coining gold and silver coins, as follows: First, gold coins, to wit: Eagles-of the value of ten dollars or units: half-eagles of the value' of five dollars: quarter-eagles of the value of two aud a half' dollars, the act specifying in each case the number of grains- and fractions of a grain the coin shall contain, whether fabricated from pure or standard gold. Second, silver coins, to wit: “ Dollars or units,” each to contain 371 grains and. -^ths parts of a grain of pure silver, or 416 grains of standard silver. Like provision is also made for the coinage of half-dollars, quarter-dollars, dimes, and half-dimes, and also for the coinage of certain copper coins, but it is not. necessary to enter much into .those details in this case.
Provision, it must be conceded, is not there made, in express-terms, that the money unit of the United States shall be one dollar, as in the ordinance passed during the. Confederation, but the act under consideration assumes throughout that the *594coin called dollar is the coin employed for that purpose, as is obvious from the fact that the words dollars and units are treated as synonymous, and that all the gold coins previously described in the same section are measured by that word iis the acknowledged money unit of the Constitution. 'Very strong doubts are entertained whether an act of Congress is absolutely necessary to constitute the gold and.silver coins of 'he United States, fabricated and stamped as such by the proper executive officers of the mint, a legal tender in payment of debts. Constituted as such coins are by the Constitution, the standard of value, the bettor opinion would seem to be that th$y become legal tender for that purpose, if minted of the required weight and fineness, as soon as they are coined and put in circulation by lawful authority, but it is unnecessary to decide that question in this case, as the Congress, by the 16th section of the act establishing a mint, provided that all the gold and silver coins which shall have been struck at, and issued from, the said mint shall be a iawful tender in all payments whatsoever — those of full •weight “according to the respective values herein declared, and those of less than full weight at values proportioned to their respective weights.” Such a regulation is at all events highly expedientas all experience shows that even gold and silver coins are liable to be diminished in weight by wear and abrasion, even if it is not absolutely necessary in- order to constitute the coins, if of full weight, a legal tender.
•Enough has already been remarked to show that the money unit of the United States is the coined dollar, described in the act establishing the mint, but if more be wanted it will be found in the 20th section of that act, which provides that the money of account of the United States shal . be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or tenths, &c., .and that all accounts in the public offices and all proceedings in the Federal courts shall be kept and had in conformity to that regulation.*
Completed, as the circle of measures adopted by Congress *595were, to put the new government into successful operation, by the passage of that act, it will be instructive to take a brief review of the important events which occurred within the period of ten years next preceding its passage, or of the ten years next following- the time when that measure wras first proposed in the Congress of the Confederation. Two reasons suggest the 21st of February, 1782, as the time to commence the review, in addition to the fact that it was on that day that the committee of Congress made their report approving of the project to establish a national mint.* They are as follows: (1) Because that date just precedes the close of the’ War of the Revolution ; and (2), because the date at the same time extends back to a period when all America had come to the conclusion that all the paper currency in circulation was utterly worthless, and that nothing was fit for a standard of value but gold and silver coin fabricated and stamped by the national authority. Discussion upon the subject was continued, and the ordinance was passed, but the measure was not put in operation', as the Convention met the next year, and the Constitution was framed, adopted, and ratified, the President and the members of Congress were elected, laws were passed, the judicial system was organized, the executive departments were created, the revenue system established, aud provision was made to execute tlie power vested in Congress to coin money and provide a standard of value, as ordained by the Constitution.
Perfect consistency characterizes the measures of that entire period in respect to the matter in question, and it would bo strange if it had been otherwise, as the whole series of measures were to a very largo extent the doings of the same class of men, whether the remark is applied to the old Congress, or the Convention which framed the Constitution, or to the first and second sessions of the new Congress which passed the laws referred to and pat the new system of government under the Constitution into full operation. Wise and complete as those laws were, still some *596difficulties arose, as the several States had not adopted the money unit of the United States, nor the money of account prescribed by the twentieth section of the act establishing the mint. Such embarrassments, however, were chiefly felt in the Federal courts, and they were not of long continuance, as the several States, one after another, in- pretty rapid succession, adopted the new system established by Congress both as to the money unit and the money of account. Virginia, December 19th, 1792, re-enacted that section in ’ the act of. Congress without any material alteration, and New Hampshire, on the 20th of February, 1794, passed a similar law.* Massachusetts adopted the same provision thbfiext year, and so did Rhode Island and South Carolina. † 'Georgia concurred on the 22d of February, 1796, and New York on the 27th of January, 1797, aud all the other States adopted the same regulation in the course of a few years.‡ State concurrence ivas', essential in those particulars to the proper working of the new system, and it was cheerfully accorded by the Stat$ legislatures without 'unnecessary delay.
Congress established frs the money unit the coin mentioned in the Constitution, any1 the one which had been adopted as such seven years before in the resolve passed by the Congress of the Confederation. Dollars, and decimals of dollars, were adopted as the money of account by universal consent, as may be inferred from the unanimity exhibited by the States in following the example of Congress. Nothing remained for Congress to do to perfect the new system but to execute the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, as it is clear that the Constitution makes no provision.for a standard of value unless the power to establish it is conferred by that grant.
Power to fix the standard of rveights and measures is vested in Congress by the Constitution in plain and uuam*597biguous terms, and it was never doubted, certainly not until within a recent period, that the power conferred to Coin money or to fabricate and stamp coins from gold and silver, which‘in the constitutional sense is the.sanie thing, together with the power to determine the fineness, weight^ and denominations of the moneys coined, was intended to accomplish the same purpose as to values. . Indubitably it was so/ understood by Congress in prescribing the various regulations contained in- the act establishing the national 'mint,' andit continued to be so understood by all branches of the government — executive, legislative, and judicial — and-by the, whole people of the United States, for the period of seventy years, from the passage of that act.
^ New regulations became necessary, and were passed in the méautime, increasing slightly the. proportioh of alloy used in fabricating the gold coins, but if those enactments are carefully examined.it will be found, that no one of them contains anything^ inconsistent in principle with the views here expressed. Gold, at the time the act establishing the mint became. ,a law, was valued 15 to 1 as compared with silver, but the disparity in value gradually increased, and to such an extent that the gold coius began to disappear from circulation, and. to remedy that evil Congress found it necessary to augment the relative proportion of alloy by diminishing the required amount of gold, whether pure or standard.. Eagles coined under that act were required to contain each 232 grains of pure gold, or 258,grains of standard gold.* Three years later Cougress enacted that the standard for both gold and silver coius should thereafter be such that, of 1000 parts by weight, 900 should be of pure metal and 100 of alloy, by which the gross weight of the dollar was reduced to 412J grains, but the fineness of the coins was correspondingly increased, 30 that tlie money unit remained of the same intrinsic value as under the original act. Apply that rule to the eagle and it will be seen that its gross weight would be increased, as it was in fact by that act, but it con*598tinued to contain, as under the preceding act, 232 grains of pure gold and no more, showing conclusively that no change was made in the value of the coins,*
Double eagles and gold dollars were authorized to be “struck and coined” at the mint, by the act of March 3d, 1849, but the standard established for other gold coins was not changed, and the provision was that the hew coins should also be legal tender for their coined value.†
Fractional silver coins were somewhat reduced in value by the act of February 21st, 1853, but the same act provided to the effect that the silver coins issued in conformity thereto should not be a legal tender for any sum exceeding five dollars, showing that the. purpose of the enactment was to prevent the fractional coins, so essential for daily use, from being hoarded or otherwise withdrawn from circulation.‡
Suppose it be conceded, however, that the effect of that act was slightly to debase the fractional silver coins struck . and coined under it, still it is quite clear that the amount was too inconsiderable td> furnish any solid argument against the proposition that the standard of value in the United States was fixed by the Constitution, and that such was the. understanding, both of the government and of the people of the United States, for a period of more than seventy years from the time the Constitution was adopted and put in successful operation under the laws of Congress. Throughout that period the value of the money unit was never diminished, and it remains to-day, in respect to value, what it was when it was defined in the act establishing the mint, and it is safe to affirm that no one of the changes made in the other coins, .except perhaps the fractional silver coins, ever extended one whit beyond the appropriate limit of constitutional regulation.
Treasury notes, called United States notes, were authorized to be issued by the act of February 25th, 1862, to the amount of $150,000,000, on the credit of the United States, but. they were not to bear interest, and were to be made *599payable to bearer at the treasury. They were to be .issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, and the further provision was that the notes so issued should be lawful money and legal tender in payment of, all debts, public and. private, within the United States, except duties on imports and interest upon bonds and notes of the United States, which the act provides “shall be paid in coin.”* Subsequent acts passed for a similar purpose also except “ certificates of indebtedness and of deposit,” but it will not be necessary to refer specially to the other acts, as the history of that legislation is fully given in the prior decision of this court upon the same subject.†
Strictly examined it is doubtful whether either of the cases before the' court present any such questions as those which have been discussed in the opinion of the majority of the court just read; but suppose'they do, which is not admitted, it then becomes necessary to inquire in the first place whether those questions am not closed by the recorded decisions of this court. Two questions are examined in the opinion of the majority of the court: (1.) Whether the legal tender acts are constitutional as to contracts made before the acts were passed. (2.) Whether they are valid if applied to contracts made since their passage.
Assume that the views here expressed are correct, and it matters not whether the contract was made before or after the act of Congress was passed, as it necessarily follows that Congress cannot, under any circumstances, make paper promises, of any kind, a legal tender in payment of debts. Prior to the decision just pronounced it is conceded that the second question presented in the record was never determined by this- court, except as it is involved in the first question, but it is admitted by the majority of the court that the first question, that is the question whether the acts under consideration are constitutional as to contracts made before their passage, was fully presented in the case of Hepburn v. *600'Griswold, and that the court decided that ail act of Congress making mere paper "promises to pay dollars.a legal tender in payment of debts previously contracted is unconstitutional ' and void.
' Admitted or not, it is as clear as anything in legal decision can be that the judgment of the court in that case controls the first question presented in the cases before the court, unless it be held that the judgment in that ease was given for the wrong party and that the opinion given by the Chief Justice ought to.be overruled.
Attempt is made to show that the second question is an open one, but the two, in my judgment, involve the’same considerations, as Congress possesses no other power upon the subject- than that which is derived from the grant to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin. By that remark it is not meant to deny the proposition that Congress in executing the express grants may not pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying the same into execution, as provided in another clause of the same section of the Constitution. Much consideration of that topic is not required, as the discussion was pretty nearly exhausted by the Chief Justice in the case of Hepburn v. Griswold* which arose under the same act and in which he gave the opinion. In that case the' contract'bore date prior to the passage of the law, and he showed conclusively that it could never be necessary and proper, within the meaning of the Constitution, that Congress, in executing any of the ^express powers, should pass laws to compel a creditor to accept paper promises as fulfilling a contract for the payment of money expressed in dollars. Obviously the decision was confined to the case before the court, but I am of the opinion that the same rule must Be applied whether the contract was made before or after the passage of the law;, as the contract for the payment of money, expressed in dollars, is a contract ■to make the payment in such money as the Constitution recognizes and establishes as a standard of value. Money *601values can no more be measured without a standard of value than distances without a standard of extent, or quantities without a standard of weights or measures, and it is as necessary that there should be a money unit as that there should.be a unit of .extent, or of weight, or-quantity.*
Credit, currency, whether issued by the States or the United States, or by private corporations or. individuals, is not'recognized by the Constitution as a staudard of value, nor'can it be made such by any law which Congress or the. ' States can pass, asthe laws of trade are stronger than any -legislative enactment. Commerce requires a standard of value, and all experience warrants the prediction that commerce will have it, whether the United States .agree or disagree; as the laws of commerce in that respect are stronger' than the laws of any single nation of the commercial world.† Values cannot be measured without a standard any more than time or. duration, or length, surface, or solidity, or weight, gravity, or quantity. Something in every such case must be adopted as a unit which bears a known relation to that which is to be measured, as the dollar for values, the hour for time or duration, .the foot of twelve inches for length, the yard for cloth measure, the square foot or yard for surface, the cubic foot for solidity, the gallon for liquids, and the pound for weights; the pound avoirdupois being used in most commercial transactions and the pound troy “ for weighing gold and silver and precious stones, except diamonds.”‡
Unrestricted, power “to-ñxthe standard of weights and measures! is vested in Cougress, but until recently Congress had n5t enacted any general regulations in execution of that power.§ Regulations upon the subject existed in the States at the adoption of the Constitution, the same as those *602which prevailed.' at that time in the parent coilntry, and Judge Story says that the understanding was that those regulations remained in full force and that the States, until Congress should legislate, possessed the power to fix their own weights and measures.*
Power to coin money and regulate the value of domestic and foreign coin was vested in the national government to produce uniformity of value and to prevent the embarrassments of a perpetually fluctuating and variable currency.†
Money, says the same commentator, is the universal medium or common standard by a comparison with which the value of all merchandise may be ascertained; and he also speaks" of it as “ a sigh which represents the respective values of all other commodities.’‡ Such a power, that is the power to coin money, he adds, is one of the ordinary prerogatives of sovereignty, and is almost universally exercised in order to preserve a proper circulation of good coin, of a known value, in the home market.§
Interests of such magnitude and pervading importance as those involved in providing for a uniform standard of value throughout the Union were manifestly entitled to the protection of the national authority, and in .view of the evils, experienced for the want of such a standard during the war of the Revolution, when the country ivas inundated with floods of depreciated paper, the members of the Convention who.framed the Constitution did not hesitate to confide the power to Congress not only to coin money and regulate the value thereof, but also the power to regulate the value of foreign coin, which was denied to the Congress of the Confederation. ǁ
Influenced by these considerations and others expressed *603in the opinion of the Chief Justice, this court decided in the case referred to, that the act-of Congress making the notes in question “lawful money and a legal tender in payment of debts” could not be vindicated as necessary and proper means for carrying into effect the power vested in Congress to coin money and regulate the value thereof, or any other express power vested in-Congress under the Constitution. Unless that case, therefore, is overruled, it is clear in my judgmeut, that both the cases before the court are controlled by that decision. Controversies determined -by the Supreme Court are finally and conclusively settled, as the decisions are numerous that the court cannot review and reverse their own judgments.*
But where the parties are different, it is said the court, in a subsequent case, may overrule a former decision, and it must be admitted that the proposition, in a technical point of view, is correct. Such examples are to be found in the reported decisions of the court, but they are not numerous, and it seems clear that the number ought never to be increased, especially in a matter of so much importance, unless the error is plain and upon the clearest convictions of judicial duty.
Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff in that case on the 17th of September, 1864^ in the highest court of the State, and on the 23d of June in the succeeding year the defendants sued out a writ of error, and removed the cause into this court for re-examination.† Under the regular call of the docket the case was first argued at the December Term, 1867, but at the suggestion of the Attorn ey-Grenei'al an order was passed that it be re-argued, and the case was accordingly continued for that purpose. Able counsel appeared at the next term, and it was again elaborately argued on both sides. Four or five other cases were also on the calendar, supposed at that time to involve the same cousti*604tutional questions, and those eases were also argued, bringing to the aid of the court an unusual array of counsel of great learning and eminent abilities. Investigation and deliberation followed, authorities, were examined, and oft-repeated consultations among the justices ensued, and the case was held under advisement as long as.necessary to the fullest examination by all the. justices of the court, before the opinion of the court was delivered. By law the Supreme Court at that'time'consisted of the Chief Justice and seven associate justices, the act of Congress having provided that no vacancy in the office of associate justice should be filled until number should be reduced to six.* Five of the number, including the Chief Justice, concurred in . the opinion in that case, and the judgment of the State court was affirmed,, three of the associate justices dissenting. Since that time one of the justices who concurred in that opinion of the court has resigned, and Congress having increased the number of-the associate justices .to eight, the two cases before the court have been argued, and the result is that the opinion delivered in the former case is overruled; ■ five.justices concurring in the present opinion and four dissenting. Five justices concurred iir the first opiniou, and five have- overruled it.† Persuaded that the first opinion was right, for the reasons already assigned, it is not possible that I should concur iu the second, even if it were true that .no other reasons of any weight could.be given in support of the judgment in the first cáse, and that the conclusion there reached must starid or fall without any other support: Many other reasons, however, may be invoked to fortify that conclusion, equally persuasive and convincing with those to which reference has been made'.
All writers upon political economy agree that money is .the universal standard of value, and the measure of exchange,' foreign and domestic, and that the power to coin and regulate the value of money is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. Goods and chattels were directly bar*605tered, one for another, when the division of labor was first introduced, but gold and silver were adopted to serve the purpose of exchange by. the tacit concurrence of all nations at a very early period in the history of commercial transactions.* Commodities of various kinds were used as money at different periods in different countries, but experience soon showed the commercial nations that gold and-silver embodied the qualities desirable in money in a much greater degreq than any other known commodity or sübstance.† Daily experience shows the truth of that proposition, and supersedes the necessity of any remarks to enforce it, as’all admit that a commodity to serve as a standard of value and a medium of exchange must be easily divisible into small portions; that it must admit of being kept for au indefinite period without deteriorating; that it must possess great value in small bulk, and be capable of being easily transported from place to place; that a given denomination of money should always be equal in weight and quality, or fineness to other pieces of. money of the same denomination, and that its value should be the same or as little subject to variation as possible.‡ Such qualities, all agree, are united in a much greater degree in gold and silver than in any other known commodity, which was as well known to the members' of the Convention who framed the Constitution as to any body of men since assembled, and intrusted to any extent with-the public affairs. They not only knew that the money of the commercial world was gold and silver, but they also knew, from bitter experience, that paper promises, whether issued by the States or the United States, were utterly worthless as a standard of value for any practical purpose.
Evidence of the truth of these remarks, of the most convincing character, is to be found in the published proceedings of that Convention. Debate upon the subject first arose when an amendment was proposed to prohibit the States *606from emitting bills of credit or making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, and from the character of that debate, and the vote on the amendment, it became apparent that paper money had but few, if any friends in the Convention.* Article seven of the draft of the Constitution, as reported to the Convention, contained the clause, “and emit bills on the credit.of the United States,” appended to the grant of power vested in Congress to borrow money, and it was on the motion to strike out that clause thatthe principal discussion in respect to paper money took place. Mr. Madison inquired if it would not be sufficient /to prohibit the making such bills a tender, as that would remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. Promissory notes, he said, in that shape, that is when not a tender, “ may in some emergencies be best.” Some were willing to acquiesce in the modification suggested by Mr. Madison, b,ut Mr. Morris, who submitted the motion, objected, insisting that if the motion prevailed there would still be room left for the notes of a responsible minister, which, as he said, “would do all the good without the mischief.” Decided objections were advanced by Mr. Ells-worth, who said he thought the moment a favorable one “to shut and bar the door against paper money;” and others expressed^ their opposition to the clause in equally decisive language, even saying that they would sooner see the whole plan rejected than retain the three words, “and emit bills.” Suffice it to say, without reproducing the discussion, that the motion prevailed — nine States to two — and the clause was stricken out and no attempt was ever made to restore it. Paper money, as legal tender, had'few or no advocates in the Convention, and it never had more than one open advocate throughout the period the Constitution was under discussion, either in the Convention which framed it, or in the conventions of the States where it was ratified. Virginia voted in the affirmative ou the motion to strike out that clause, Mr. Madison being satisfied that if the motion pre*607vailed it would not have the effect to disable the government from the use of treasury notes, and being himself in favor of cutting “off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts.”* When the draft for the Constitution was reported the clause prohibiting the States from making anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts contained an' exception, “in case Congress consented,” but the Convention. struck out the exception, and made the prohibition absolute, one of the members remarking that it was a favorable moment to crush out paper money, and all or nearly all of the Convention seemed to concur in the sentiment.†
Contemporaneous acts are certainly evidence of intention, and if so, it is difficult to see what more is needed to show that the members of that Convention intended to withhold from the States, and from the United States, all power to make anything hut gold and silver a standard of value, or a tender in .payment of debts.' Equally decisive proof to the same effect is found in the debates which subsequently occurred in the conventions of the several States, to which the Constitution, as adopted, was submitted for ratification.‡ Mr. Martin thought that the States ought not to be totally deprived of the right to emit bills of credit, but he says “that the-Convention was so smitten with the paper money dread that they insisted that the prohibition should be absolute.’§'
Currency is a word much more comprehensive than the word money, as it may include bank b.ills and even bills of exchange as well as coins of gold and silver, but the word money, as employed in the grant of power under consideration, means the coins of gold and silver, fabricated and stamped as required by law, which, by virtue of their intrinsic value, as universally acknowledged, and their official origin, become the medium of exchange and the standard *608by which, all other values are expressed and discharged. Support to the .proposition that the word money, as employed in that clause, was intended to be used in the sense here supposed- is also derived from the language employed in certain numbers of the Federalist, which, as is well known, were written and. published during the period the question whether the States would 'ratify the Constitution was pending in their several conventions. Such men as the writers of those essays never could have employed such language if they had entertained the remotest idea that Con.'grefes possessed the power to make paper promises a-legal tender.*
■ Like support is also derived from the language of Mr. Hamilton in his celebrated report recommending the incorporation of a national bank. He first states the objection to •the proposed measure, that banks tend to banish the gold and silver of the country; and secondly he gives the answer to that objection made by the advocates of the bank, that it is immaterial what serves the purpose of money, and then says that the answer is not entirely satisfactory, as the permanent increase or decrease of the precious metals in a country can hardly ever be a matter of indifference. “As the commodity taken in lieu of every other, it (coin) is a species of the most effective wealth, and as the money of the world it is of great concern to-the state that it possesses a sufficiency of it to face any demands which the protection of its external interests may create.” lie favored the incorporation of a national bank, with power to issue bills and notes payable on demand in gold and silver,.but he expressed himself as utterly opposed to paper emissions by the United States, characterizing them as so liable to abuse and even so certain of being abused that the government ought never to trust itself “with the use of so seducing and dangerous an element.”t Opposed as he was to paper emissions by the United States, under any circumstances, it is past belief that he could ever- have concurred in the proposition to make *609such emissions a tender in payment of debts, either as a member of the Convention which framed the Constitution or as the head of the Treasury Department. Treasury notes, however, have repeatedly been authorized by Congress, commencing with the act of 30th of June, 1812, but it was never supposed before the time when the several acts in question were passed that Congress could make such notes a legal tender in payment of debts.* Such notes, it was enacted, should be received in payment of all duties and taxes laid, and in payment for public lands sold, by the Federal ■authority. Provision was also made in most or all of the acts that the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approbation of the President, might cause treasury notes to be issued, at the par value thereof, in payment of services, of supplies, or of debts for which the United States were or might be answerable by law, to such person or persons as should be willing to accept the same in payment, but it never occurred to the legislators of that day that such notes could be made a legal tender in discharge of such indebtedness, or that the public creditor could be compelled to accept-them in payment of his just demands. †
Financial embarrassments, second only in their disastrous-consequences to those which preceded the adoption of the Constitution, arose towards the. close of the last war with* Great Britain, and it is matter of history that those embarrassments were too great and pervading to be overcome-by the use of treasury notes or any other paper emissions-without a specie basis. Expedients of various kinds were-suggested, but it never occurred, either to the executive or-to Congress that a remedy could be found by making treasury notes, as then authorized, a legal tender, and the result •was that the second Bank of the United States was incorporated.‡ Paper currency, it may be said, was authorized by that act, which is undoubtedly true; and it is also true that the bills or notes of the bank were made receivable in all payments to the United States, if the same were at the time-*610payable cm demand, but the act provided that the corporation should not refuse, under a heavy penalty', the payment in gold and silver, of any of its notes, bills, or obligations, nor of any' moneys received upon deposit in the bank or in any of its offices of discount and deposit.
Serious attempt is made, strange to say, to fortify the proposition that the acts in question are constitutional from the fact that Congress, in providing for the use of treasury notes, and in granting the charters to the respective national banks, made the notes and bills receivable in payment of duties and taxes, but the answer to the suggestion is so obvious that it is hardly necessary to pause to suggest its refutation.* Creditors may exact gold and silver or they' may' waive the right to require such money, and accept credit currency, or commodities, other than gold and silver, and the United States, as creditors, or in the. exercise of their express power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, may, if they see fit, accept the treasury notes or bank bills in such payments as substitutes for the constitutional currency. .Further cfiseussion of the proposition is unnecessary', as it. is plainly destitute of any merit whatever.†
Resort wap also had to treasury notes in the revulsion of 1837, and during the war with Mexico, and also in the great revulsion of 1857, but the new theory that Congress could make treasury notes á legal tender was not even suggested, either by the President or by any member of Congress.‡
Seventy years are included in this review, even if the .computation is only carried back to the passage of the act establishing the mint, and it is clear that there is no trace of any act, executive or legislative, within that period, which affords the slightest support to the new constitutional theory that Congress can by law constitute paper emissions a tender in payment of debts. Even Washington, the father of our country, refused to accept paper money in payment of debts, contracted before the War of Independence, and the proof *611is full to the point that Hamilton, as well as Jefferson and Madison, was opposed to paper emissions by the national author! ty.*
Sufficient also is recorded in the reports of the decisions of this court to show that the court,'from the organization of the judicial system to the day when the judgments in the cases before the court were . announced,† held opinions utterly opposed to such a construction of the Constitution as would authorize Congress to make paper promises a legal tender as between debtor and creditor. Throughout that period the doctrine of the court has been, and still is, unless the opinion of the court just read constitutes aa exception, that the government of the United States, as ordained audestablished by the Constitution, is a government of enumerated powers; that all the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Statesj are reserved to the States respectively or to the people; that every power vested in the Federal government- under the Constitution is in its nature sovereign, aud that Congress may pass all laws necessarj7 and proper to carry the same into execution, or, in other words, that the power being sovereign includes, by force of the term, the requisite means, fairly applicable to the attainment of the contemplated end, which are not precluded by restrictions or exceptions expressed or necessarily implied, and not contrary to the essential ends of political'society.‡
Definitions slightly different have been given by different jurists to the words “ necessaiy aud proper,” employed in • the clause of the Constitution conferring upon Congress the power to pass laws for carrying the express grants of power into execution, but no one ever pretended that a construction or definition could be sustained that the general clause would authorize the employment of such means in the execution of one express grant as would practically *612nullify another or render another utterly nugatory. Circumstances made it necessary that Mr. Hamilton should examine that phrase at a very early period after the Constitution was adopted, and the definition he gave to it is as follows: “All the means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the end of such power which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution, and not contrary to the essential ends of political society.”. Twenty-five years later the question was exam-, ined by the Supreme Oobrt* and authoritatively settled, the Chief Justice giving the opinion. His words were: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”
Substantially the same definition was adopted by the present Chief Justice in the former case, in which he gave, the opinion of the court, and there is nothing contained in the Federal reports giving the slightest sanction to any broader definition of those words.. Take the definition given by Mr. Hamilton, which, perhaps, is the broadest, if there is any difference, and still it is obvious that it would give no countenance whatever to the theory that Congress, in passing a law to execute' one express grant of the Constitution, could authorize means which would nullify another express grant, or render it nugatory for the attainment of the end which the framers of the Constitution intended it should accomplish.
Authority to coin money was vested in Congresá to provide a permanent national standard of valué, everywhere the same, and subject to no variation except what Congress shall make under the power to regulate the value thereof, and it is not possible to affirm, with any hope that the utterance will avail in the argument, that the power to coin money is not an express power, and if those premises are *613conceded it canuot be shown that Congress can so expand any other express power by implication as to nullify or defeat the great purposes which the power to coin money and establish a standard of value was intended to accomplish.
Government notes, it is conceded, may be issued as a means of borrowing money, because the act of issuing the notes may be, and often is, a requisite means to execute the granted power, and being fairly applicable to the attainment of the end, the notes, as means, may be employed, as they are not precluded by any restrictions or exceptions, and are not repugnant to any other express grant contained in the .Constitution. Light-houses, buoys, and beacons may be erected under the power to regulate commerce, but Congress cannot authorize an officer of the government to take private property for such a purpose without just compensation, as the exercise of such a power would be repugnant to the fifth amendment. Power to lay and collect taxes is conferred upon Congress, but the Congress cannot tax the salaries of the State judges, as the exercise of such a power is incompatible with the admitted power of the States to create courts, appoint judges, and provide tor their compensation.*
Congress may also impose duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare, but the Congress canuot lay any tax or duty on articles exported from any State, nor can Congress give any preference by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another, as the exercise of any such power is prohibited by the Constitution. Exclusive power.is vested in Congress to declare war, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Appropriations to execute those powers m'ay be made by Congress, but no appropriations of money to that use can be made for a longer term than two years, as an appropriation .for a longer term is expressly *614prohibited by the same clause which confers the power to raise and support armies. By virtue of those grants of power Congress may erect forts and magazines, may construct navy-yards and dóck-yards, manufacture arms and munitions of war, and may establish depots and other needful buildings for their preservation, but the Congress cannot take private property for that purpose without making compensation to the owner, as- the Constitution provides that private properly shall not be takeu for public use without just compensation.
Legislative power under the Constitution can never be rightfully extended to the exercise of a powrer not granted nor to that which is prohibited, and it makes no difference whether the prohibition is express or implied, as an implied 'prohibition, when once ascertained, is as effectual to negative the right to legislate as one that is expressed; the rule being that Congress, in passing laws to carry the express powers granted into execution, cannot select any means as requisite for that purpose or as fairly applicable to the attainment of the ehd, which are precluded by restrictions or exceptions contained in the Constitution, or which are contrary to the essential ends of political society.*
Concede these premises, and it follows that the acts of Congress in question cannot be regarded as valid unless it can be held that the power to make paper emissions a legal tender in payment of debts can properly be'implied from the power-to coin money, and that such emissions, when enforced by such a provision, become the legal standard of value under the Constitution. Extended discussion of the first branch of the proposition would seem to be unnecessary, as the dissenting justices in the former case' abandoned that point and frankly stated in the dissenting opinion .delivered that they were not able to see in those clauses, “ standing alone, a sufficient warrant for the exercise of this power.” Through their organ on the occasion they referred to the power to declare Avar, to suppress insurrection, to *615raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, to borrow money, to pay the debts of the Union, and to pro- • vide for the common defence and general welfare, as grants of power conferred in separate clauses of the Constitution. Reference was then made in very appropriate terms to the exigencies of the treasury during that period and the conclusion reached, though expressed interrogatively, appears • to be that the provision making the notes a legal tender was a necessary and proper one as conducing “ towards the purpose of borrowing money, of paying debts, of raising armies, of suppressing insurrection,” or, -as expressed in another part of the same opinion, the provision was regarded as “necessary and proper to enable the government to borrow money to carry on the war.”*
Suggestions or intimations are made in one or more of the.opinions given in the State courts that the power assumed by Congress may be vindicated as properly implied from the power to coin money, but inasmuch as that assumption was not the ground of the dissent in the former case, and as the court is not referred to any case where a court affirming the validity of the acts of Congress in question has ventured to rest their decision upon, that theory, it does, not appear to be necessary to protract the discussion upon that point.
Such notes are not declared in the acts of Congress to be a standard of value, and if they were the provision would be as powerless to impart that quality to the notes as were the processes of the alchemist to convert chalk into gold, or the contrivances of the mechanic to organize a machine and give it perpetual motion. Gold and silver were adopted as the standard of value, even before civil governments were organized, and they have always been regarded as such to the present time, and it is safe to affirm that they will continue to be such by universal consent, in spite of legislative enactments and of judicial decisions. Treasury notes, or the notes in question, called by what name they may be, never *616performed that office, even for a day, and it may be added that neither legislative enactments nor judicial decisions can compel the commercial world to accept paper emissions of any kind as the standard of value by which all other values are to be measured.* Nothing but money will in fact perform that office, and it is clear that neither legislative enactments nor judicial decisions can perform commercial impossibilities. Commodities undoubtedly may be exchanged as matter of barter, or the seller may accept paper promises instead of money, but it is nevertheless true, as stated by Mr. Iiuskisson, that money is not only the common measure and common representative of all other commodities, but also the common and universal equivalent. Whoever buys, gives, whoever sells, receives such a quantity of pure gold or silver as is equivalent to the article bought or sold; or if he'gives or receives paper instead of money, he gives or receives that which is valuable only as it stipulates the payment of a given quantity of gold or silver.†.
■“Most unquestionably,” said Mr. Webster,‡' “there is no legal tender, and there can be no legal tender, in this country, under the authority of this government, or any other, but gold and silver. . . . This is a constitutional principle, perfectly plain and of the very highest importance.” He. admitted that no such express prohibition was contained in the Constitution, and then proceeded to say : “As Congress has no power granted to it in this respect but to coin money and to regulate the value of foreign coins, it clearly has no power to substitute paper or anything else for coin as a tender in payment of debts and in discharge of contracts,” adding that “ Congress has exercised the power fully in both its branches. It has coined money and still chins it, it has regulated the value of foreign coins and still regulates their value. The legal tender, therefore, toe constitutional STANDARD OR VALUE, IS ESTABLISHED AND CANNOT BE OVERTHROWN.” Beyond peradventuro he was of the opinion that gold and silver, at rates fixed by Congress, constituted the *617legal standard of value, and that neither Congress nor the States had authority to establish any other standard in its place.*
Views equally decisive have been expressed by this court in a case where the remarks were pertinent to the question presented for decision.† Certain questions were certified here which arose in the Circuit Court in the trial of an indictment in which the defendant was charged with having brought into the United States from a foreign place, with intent to pass, utter, publish, and sell certain false, forged, and counterfeit coins, made, forged, and counterfeited in the resemblance and similitude of the coins struck at the ' mint. Doubts were raised at the trial whether Congress had the power tó pass the law on which the iudietmeut was founded. Objection was made that the acts charged were only a fraud in trafile, and, as such, were punishable, if at ■ all, under the State law. Kesponsive to that suggestion the court say that the provisions of the section “ appertain rather to the execution of an important trust invested by the Constitution, and tó the obligation to fulfil that trust on the part of the government, namely, the trust and the duty of creating and maintaining a uniform and pure metallic standard of value throughout the Union; that' the power of coining money and of regulating its value was delegated to Congress by the Constitution for the very purpose of creating and preserving the uniformity and purity of such a standard of 'value, and on account of the impossibility which was foreseen of otherwise preventing the inequalities and the confusion necessarily incident to different, views of policy which in difr ferent communities would be brought to bear on this subject. The power to coin money being thus given to Congress, founded^ on public necessity, it must carry with it the correlative power of protecting the creature and object of that power.” Appropriate suggestions follow as to the right of the government to adopt measures to exclude counterfeits and prevent the true coin from being substituted by others *618of no intrinsic value, and the justice delivering the opinion’ then proceeds to say, that Congress “having emitted a circulating medium, a standard of value indispensable for the purposes of the community and for the action of the government itself, the Congress is accordingly authorized and bound in duty to prevent its debasement and expulsion and the destruction of the general confidence and convenience by the influx and substitution of a spurious coin in lieu of the constitutional currency.”.
Equally decisive views were expressed by the court six years earlier, in the case of Gwin v. Breedlove* in which the opinion of the court was delivered by the late Mr. Justice Catron, than whom no justice who ever sat in the court was more opposed to the expression of an opinion on a point net involved in the record.
No State shall coin money, emit bills of credit, or make anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debt.s. These prohibitions, said Mr. Justice Washington,† associated with the powers granted to Congress to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, most obviously constitute members of the same family, being upon the same subject and governed by the same policy. This policy, said the learned justice,was to provide a fixed and uniform standard of value throughout the United States, by which the commercial and other dealings between the citizens thereof, or between them and foreigners, as well as the moneyed transactions of the government, should be regulated. Language so well chosen and so explicit cannot be misunderstood, and the views expressed by Mr. Justice Johnson in the same case are even more decisive. Ho said the prohibition in the Constitution to make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts is express and universal. The framers of the Constitution regarded it as an evil to be repelled without modification, and that they have therefore left nothing to be inferred or deduced from construction on the subject^‡
*619Recorded as those opinions have been for forty-five years, and never questioned, they are certainly entitled to much weight, especially as the principles which are there laid down were subsequently affirmed in two cases by the unanimous opinion of this court.*
Strong support to the view here taken is also derived from the case of Craig v. Missouri, last cited, in which the opinion was given by the Chief Justice. Loan certificates issued by the State were the consideration of the note in suit in that case, and the defence was that the certificates were bills of credit and that the consideration of the note was illegal. Responsive to that defence the plaintiff insisted that the certificates were not bills of credit, because they had not been made a legal tender, to which the court replied, that the emission of bills of credit and the enactment of tender laws were distinct operations, independent of each other; that both were forbidden by the Constitution; that the evils of paper money did not result solely from the quality of its being made a tender in payment of debts; that that quality might be the most pernicious one, but that it was not an essential quality of bills of credit nor the only mischief resulting from such emissions.†
Remarks of the Chief Justice in the case of Sturges v. Crowninshield‡ may also be referred to as even more explicit and decisive to the same conclusion than anything embodied in the other cases. He first describes, in vivid colors, the general distress which followed the war in which our independence was established. Paper money, he said, was issued, worthless lauds and other property of no use to the creditor were made a tender in payment of debts, and the time of payment stipulated in the contract was extended by law. Mischief to such an extent was done, and so much more was apprehended, that general distrust prevailed and all *620confidence between man and man was destroyed. Special reference was made to those grievances by the Chief Justice because it was insisted that the prohibition to pass laws impairing the obligatiou of contracts ought to be confined by the couvt to matters of that description, but the court was of a different opinion, and held that the Convention intended to establish a great principle, that contracts should be inviolable, that the provision was intended “ to prohibit the use of any means by which the same mischief might be pro,duced.” He admitted that that provision was not intended to prevent the issue of paper money, as that evil was remedied and the practice prohibited by the clause forbidding the States to “ emit bills of credit,” inse'rte'd in the Constitution expressly for that purpose, and he also admitted that the' prohibition to emit bills of credit was- not intended to restrain the States from enabling debtors to discharge their ■ debts by the tender of property of no real value to the creditor, “ because for that subject also particular provision is made” in the Constitution; but he added, “Nothing but GOLD AND SILVER COIN CAN BE MADE A TENDER IN PAYMENT OE DEBTS.”*
Utterances of the kind are found throughout the reported decisions of this court, but there is not a- sentence or word to be found within those volumes, from the organization of the court to the passage of the acts of Congress in question, to support the opposite theorv.
Power, as Defore remarked, was vested in the Congress under the Confederation to borrow money and emit bills of credit, and. history shows that the power to emit such bills had been exercised^ before the Convention which framed the Constitution assembled, to an amount exceeding $350,000,000.† Still the draft of the Constitution, as reported, contained the words “and to emit bills” appended *621to the clause authorizing Congress to borrow money. When that clause was reached, says Mr. Martin, a motion was made to strike out the words “to emit bills of credit;” and his account of what followed affords the most persuasive and convincing evidence that the Convention, and nearly every member of it, intended to put an end to the exercise of such a power; Against the motion, he says,' we urged that it would be improper to deprive the Congress of that power; that it would be a novelty unprecedented to establish a government which should not have such authority; that it was impossible to look forward into futurity so far as to decide that events might not happen that would render the exercise of such a power absolutely necessary, &c. But a majority of the Convention, lie said, being wise beyond every event, and being willing to risk any political evil rather than admit the idea of a paper emission in any possible case, refused to trust the authority to a government to which they wrere lavishing the most unlimited powers of taxation, and to the mercy of which they were willing blindly to trust the liberty and property of the citizens of every State in the Union, and “ they erased that clause from the system.”*
More forcible vindication of the action of the Convention could hardly be made than is expressed in the language of the Federalist^ and the authority of Judge Story warrants the statement that the language there employed is “justified by almost every contemporary writer,” and is “attested in its truth by facts” beyond the influence of every attempt at contradiction. Having adverted to those facts the commentator proceeds to say, “ that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to. substitute a paper medium instead of coin.”
Emissions of the kind wTere not declared by the Continental Congress to be a legal tender, but Congress passed a resolution declaring that they ought to be a tender in payment of all private and public debts, and that a refusal to *622receive the tender ought to be an extinguishment of the debt, and recommended the States to pass such laws. They even went further and declared that whoever should refuse to receive the paper as gold or silver should be deemed an enemy to the public liberty; but our commentator says that these measures of violence and terror, so far from aiding the circulation of the paper, led on to still further depreciation.* New emissions followed and new measures were adopted to give the paper credit by pledging the public faith for its redemption. Effort followed effort in that direction until the idea of redemption at par was abandoned. Forty for one was offered and the States were required to report the bills under that regulation, but few ot the old bills were ever reported, and of course few only of the contemplated new notes were issued, and the bills in a brief period ceased to circulate, and in the course of that year quietly died in the hands of their possessors.†
Bills of credit were made a tender by the States, but all such, as well as those issued by the Congress, were dead in the hands of their possessors before the Convention assembled to frame the Constitution. Intelligent and impartial belief in the theory that such men, so instructed, in framing a government for their posterity as well as for themselves, would deliberately vest such .a power, either in Congress or the States, as a part of their perpetual system, can never iti my judgment be secured in the face of the recorded evidences to the contrary which the political and judicial history of our country affords. Such evidence, so persuasive and convincing as it is, must ultimately bring all to the conclusion that neither the Congress nor the States can make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts.
Exclusive power to coin money is certainly vested in Congress, but “ no amount of reasoning can show that executing, a promissory note and ordering it to be taken in pay*623ment of public aud private debts is a species of coiniug money.”*
Complete refutation of such theory is also found in the dissenting opinion in the former ease, in which the justice who delivered the opinion states that he is not able to deduce the power to pass the laws in question from that clause of the Constitution, and in which he admits, without qualification, that the provision making such notes a legal tender does undoubtedly impair the “ obligation of contracts made before its passage.” Extended argument, therefore, to show that the acts in question- impair the obligation of contracts made before their passage is unnecessary, but the admission stops short of the whole truth, as it leaves the implication to be drawn that the obligation of subsequent contracts-is not impaired by such legislation. Contracts for the payment of money, whether made before or after, the passage of such a provision, are contracts, if the promise is expressed in dollars, to pay the specified amount in the money recog nized aud established by the Constitution as the standard 01 value, and any act of Congress which iii theory compels the creditor to accept paper emissions, instead of the money so recognized and established, impairs the obligation of such a contract, no matter whether the contract was made before or after the act compelling the creditor to accept- such payment, as the Constitution in that respect is a part of the contract, and by its terms entitles the creditor to demand payment in the medium which the Constitution recognizes and establishes as the standard of value.
Evidently the word dollar, as employed in the Constitution-, means the money recognized and established in the express power vested in Congress to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, the framers of the Constitution having borrowed and adopted the word as used by the Continental Congress in the ordinance of the 6th of July, 1785, and of the 8th August, 1786, in which it was Biiacted that the money unit of the United States should be *624“ one dollar,” and that the money of account should be dollars and fractions of dollars, as subsequently provided in the ordinance establishing amint.* .
Repeated decisions of this court, of recent date,† have established the rule that contracts to pay coined dollars can only be satisfied by the payment of such money, which is precisely equivalent to a decision that such notes as those described in the acts of Congress'in question are not the money recognized aud established by the Constitution as the standard of value, as the money so recognized and established, if the contract is expressed in dollars, will satisfy any and every contract between party aud party. Beyond all question the cases cited recognize “ the fact accepted by all men throughout the world, that value is inherent in the precious metals; ■ that gold and silver are in themselves values, and being such, and being ip other respects best adapted to the purpose, are the only proper measures of value; that these values are determined by-weight and purity, and that form and impress are simply certificates of value, worthy of absolute reliance only because of the known integrity aud good faith of the government which ” put them in circulation.‡
When the intent of the parties as to the medium of payment is clearly expressed in a contract, the court decide, in Butler v. Horwitz, above cited, that damages for the breach of it, whether made before or since the enactment of these laws, may be properly assessed so as to give effect to that iutent, and no doubt is entertained that that rule is correct. Parties may contract to accept payment in treasury notes, or specific articles, or in bank bills, and if they do so they are bound to aecejDt the medium for which they contracted, provided the notes, specific articles, or bills arc tendered on the day the payment under the contract becomes due, and it is clear that such a tender, if seasonable aud sufficient in *625amount, is a good defence to the action. Decided cases also carry the doctrine much further, and hold, even where the contract is payable -in money and the promise is expressed in dollars, that, a tender of bank bills is a good tender if the party to whom it was made placed his objections to receiving it wholly upon the ground that the amount was not sufficient.*
Grant all that, and still it is clear that where the contract is for the payment of a certain sum of monoy, and the promise is expressed in dollars, or in coined dollars, the promisee, if he sees fit, may lawfully refuse to accept payment in any other medium than gold and silver, made a legal tender by act of Congress passed in pursuance of that provision of the Constitution which vests in Congress the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin.
Foreign coin of gold and silver may bo made a legal tender, as the power to regulate the value thereof is vested in Congress as well as the power to regulate the value of the coius fabricated and stamped at the mint.
Opposed, as the new theory is by such a body of evidence, covering the whole period of our constitutional history, all tending to the opposite conclusion, and unsupported as the theory is by a single historical fact, entitled to any weight, it would seem that the advocates of the theory ought to bo able to give it a fixed domicile' in the Constitution, or else be willing to.abandon it as a theory without any solid constitutional foundation. Yagraney in that behalf, if conceded, is certainly a very strong argument at this day, that the power does not reside in the Constitution at all, as if the fact were otherwise, the period of eighty-five years which has elapsed since the Constitution was adopted is surely long enough to have enabled its advocates to discover its locality and to be able to point out its home to those whose researches have been less successful and whoso conscientious *626convictions lead them to the conclusion that, as applied to the Constitution, it is a myth -without a habitation or a name. .
- Unless the power to enact such a provision can be referred to some one or more of the express grauts of power to Congress, as the requisite means, or as necessary and proper for carrying such express power or powers into execution, it is usually conceded that the provision must be regarded as unconstitutional, as it is not pretended that the Constitution contains any express grant of power authorizing such legislation. Powers not granted cannot be exercised by Congress, and certainly all must agree that no powers are granted except what are expressed or such as are fairly applicable as requisite means to attain the end of a power which is granted, oy, in other words, are necessary and proper to cany those yhioh are expressed into execution.* Pressed by these irropealable rules of construction, as applied, to the Constitution, those who maintain the affirmative of the question under discussion are forced to submit a specification. Courts in one or more cases have intimated that the power in question may be implied from the express power to coin money, but inasmuch as no decided case is -referred to whore the judgment of the court rests upon that ground, the suggestion will be dismissed without further cpnsideration, as one involving a proposition too latitudinons to require refutation. Most of the cases referred to attempt to deduce the power to make such paper emissions a legal tender from the express power to borrow money, or from the power to declare war, or from the two combined, as in the dissenting opinion in the case which is now overruled.
' Authority, it is conceded, exists in Congress to pass laws providing for the issue of treasury notes, based on the national credit, as necessary and proper means for fulfilling the end of the express power to borrow money, nor can it be doubted at this day, that such notes, when issued by the *627proper authority, maj7 lawfully circulate as credit currency, and that they may, .in that conventional character, be lawfully employed, if the act authorizing their issue so provides, to pay duties, taxes, and all the public exactions required to be paid into the national treasury. 'Public creditors may also be paid in such currency by their own consent, and they may be used in all other cases, where the payment iu such notes comports with the terms of the contra it. Established usage founded upon the practice of the government, often repeated, has sanctioned these rules, until it may now be said that they are not open to controversy, but the question in the cases before the court is whether the Congress may declare such notes to be lawful money, make them a legal tender, and impart to such a currency the quality of being a standard ofvalué, and compel creditors to accept the payment-of their debts iu such a currency as the equivalent of the money recognized.and established by the Constitution as the standard of value by which the value of all other commodities is to be measured. Financial measures, of various kinds, for borrowing money to'supply the wants of the treasury, beyond the receipts from taxation and the sales of the public lands, have been adopted by the government since the United States became an independent nation. Subscriptions for a loan of twelve millions of dollars were, on the 4th of August, 1790, directed to be opened at the treasury, to be made payable in certificates issued for the debt according to their specie value.* Measures of the kind were repeated in rapid succession for several years, and laws providing for loans iu one form or another appear to have been the preferred mode of borrowing money, until the 30th of June, 1812, when the first act was passed “to authorize the issue of treasury notes.”†
Loans had been previously authorized iu repeated instances, as will be seen by the following references, to which many more might be added.‡
*628Earnest opposition was made to the passage of the first act of Congress authorizing the issue of treasury notes, but the measure prevailed, and it may be remarked that the vote on the occasion was ever after regarded as having settled the question as to' the constitutionality of such an act. Five millions of dollars wore directed to be issued by that act, and the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approbation of the President, was empowered to cause such portion of the notes as ho might deem expedient to be issued at par to such public creditors or oilier persons as may choose lo receive such notes in payment,” it never having occurred to any oue that even a public creditor could bo compelled to receive' such notes in payment except by his own consent. Twenty other issues of sutíb notes were authorized by Congress in the course of the fifty years next after the passage of that act and before the passage of the acts making such notes ,a legal tender, and every one of such prior acts, being twenty in all, contains either i\n express words or by necessary implication, an equally decisive negation to the new constitutional theory that Congress can make paper emissions, either a standard of vajue or a legal tender.* Superadded to the conceded fact [hat the Constitution contains no express words to support such a theory, this long and unbroken usage, that treasury notes shall not be constituted a standard of value nor be made a tender in payment of debts, is entitled to great weight, and when taken in connection with the persuasive and convincing evidence, derived from the published proceedings of the Convention, that the framers of the Constitution never intended to grant any such power, and from the recorded sentiments of the great men whose arguments in favor of the reported draft procured its ratification, and supported as that view is by the repeated decisions of this court, and by the infallible rule of interpretation that the language of one- express power shall not be *629so expanded as to nullify the force and effect of another express power in tbe same instrument, it seems to me that it .ought to'be deemed final and conclusive that Congress cannot constitute such notes or any other paper emissions a constitutional standard of value, or make them a legal tender in payment of debts — especially as it covers the period of two foreign wars, the creation of the second national bank, and the greatest financial revulsions through which our country has ever passed. •
Guided by the views expressed in the dissenting opinion in the former case it must be taken for granted that the ■ legal tender feature in the acts in question was placed emphatically, by those, who enacted the provision, upon the necessity of the measure to the further borrowing of money and maintaining the army and navy, and such appears to be the principal ground assumed in the present opinion of the ■court. Enough also appears in some of the interrogative sentences of the dissenting opinion to show that the learned justice who delivered it intended to place the dissent very largely upon the same ground.
Nothing need be added, it would seem, to show that the power to make such notes a standard of value and a legal tender caunot beclerived from the power to borrow money, without so-expanding it by implication as to nullify the power to coin money and regulate its value, nor without extending the scope and operation of the power to borrow money to an object never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution; and if so, then it only remains to iuqnire whether it may be implied from the power to declare war,' to raise and support armies; or to provide and maintain a navy, or “to enable the government to borrow money to carry on the war,” as the phrase is in the dissenting opinion in the former case.
Money is undoubtedly the sinews of war, but the power to raise money to carry oíú-war, under the Constitution, is not an implied power, and whoever adopts that theory commits a great constitutional error. - Congress may declare war aud Congress may appropriate all moneys.iu.the' treas*630ury to carry on the war, or Congress may coin money for that purpose, or borrow money to any amount for the same purpose, or Congress may lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts,-and excises to replenish the treasury, or may dispose of the public lands or other property belonging to the United States, and may in fact, by the exercise of the express powers of the Constitution, command the whole wealth and substance of the people to sustain the public credit and prosecute the war to a successful termination. Two foreign wars were successfully conducted by means derived from those sources, and it is not doubted that those express powers will always enable Congress to maintain the national credit and defray the public expenses in every emergency which may arise, even though the national independence should be assailed by the combined forces of all the rest of the civilized world. All remarks, therefore, in the nature of entreaty or appeal, in favor of an implied power to fulfil the great purpose of national defence or to raise money to prosecute a war, are a mere waste of words, as the most powerful and comprehensive means to accomplish the purpose for which the appeal is made are found in the express powers vested in Congress to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises without limitation as to amount, to borrow money also without limitation, and to coin money, dispose of the public lands, and to appropriate all -moneys in the public treasury to that purpose.
Weighed in the light of those suggestions, as the question under discussion should be, it is plain, not only that the exercise of such an implied power is unnecessary to supply the sinews of -war, but that the framers of the Constitution never intended to trust a matte'- of such great and vital importance as that of raising means for the national defence or for the prosecution of a war to any implication whatever, as they had learned from bitter experience that the great weakness of the Confederation during the war for independence consisted in the want of such express powers. Influenced by those considerations the framers of the Constitution not only authorized Congress to lay and collect taxes, duties, *631imposts, and excises to any and every extent, but also to coin money and to borrow money without any limitation as to amount, showing that the argument that to deny the implied power to make paper emissions a legal tender will be to cripple the government, is a mere chimera, without any solid constitutional foundation for its support.
Comprehensive?, however, as the power of Federal taxation is, being without limitation as to amount, still there are some restrictions as to the manner of its exercise, and some exceptions as to the objects to which it may be applied. Bills for. raising revenue must originate in the House of Kepresentatives; duties, imposts, and excises -must be uniform throughout the United States; direct taxes must be .apportioned according to numbers; regulations of commerce and revenue shall not give any preference to the ports of one State over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to or from one State be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another; nor shall any tax or duty be laid on articles exported from any State.
Preparation for war may be made in peace, but neither the necessity for such preparation nor the actual existence of-war can have the effect to abrogate or supersede those restrictions, or to empower Congress to tax the articles excepted from taxation by the Constitution. Implied exceptions also exist, limiting the power of Federal taxation as well as that of the States.,, and when an exception- of that character.is ascertained the objects falling within it are as effectually shielded from taxation as those falling within an express.exception, for the plain reason that the “ government of the United States is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers,” from which it necessarily follows that powers not granted cannot.be exercised.*
Moneys may be raised by taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to carry on war as well as to pay the public debt or to provide for the common defence and general welfare, but no appropriation of money to’ that use can be made for á *632period longer than two years, nor can Congress, in exercising the power to levy taxes for that purpose, or any other, abrogate or Supersede those restrictions, exceptions, and limitation's’ as'they are a part of the Constitution, and.as such are as obligatory in war a3 in peace, as any other rule would subvert, in time of war, every restriction, exception, limitation, and prohibition in the Constitution, and invest Congress with unlimited power, even surpassing that possessed by .the British Parliament.
Congress may also borrow money to carry on war, without limitation, and in exercising that_express power may issue treasury notes as the requisite means for carrying the express power into execution, but Congress cannot constitute such notes a standard of value nor make them a legal tender, neither in titae of war nor in time of peace, for at least two reasons, either of which is conclusive that the exercise of such a power is not warranted by the Constitution : (1) Because the published proceedings of the Convention which adopted the Constitution, and of the State conventions which ratified it, show that those who participated in those deliberations ncveif intended to confer any such power. (2) Because such a powbr, if admitted to exist, would nullify the" effect and operation of the express power to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin; as it would substitute a paper medium in fiie place of gold and silver coin, which in itself, as compared with coin, possesses no value, is not money, either in the constitutional or commercial sense, but only a promise to pay money, is never worth par, and.often much less, even as domestic exchange, and is always fluctuating and never acknowledged either as a medium of exchange or a standard of value iu any foreign market known to American commerce.
Power to issue such notes, it is conceded, exists without limitation, but the question is whether the framers of the Constitution intended that Congress, in the exercise of that power or the power'to borrow money, whether in peace or war, should be empowered to constitute paper emissions, of any kind, a standard of'value, and make the same a legal *633tender in payment of debts. Mere convenience, or even a financial necessity in a single case, cannot be the test, but the question is what did the framers of the Constitution intend at the time the instrument was adopted and ratified ?
Constitutional powers, of the kind last mentioned — that is, the power to ordain a standard of value and to provide a circulating medium for a legal tender — are subject to no mutations of any kind. They are the same in peace and in war. What the grants of power meant when the Constitution was adopted and ratified they mean still, and their meaning can never be changed except as described in the fifth article providing for amendments, as the Constitution “ is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men and under all circumstances.”*
Delegated power ought never to be enlarged beyond the fair scope of its terms, and that rule is emphatically applicable. in the construction of the Constitution. Restrictions may at times be inconvenient, or even embarrassing, but the power to remove the difficulty by amendment is vested in the people, and if they do not exercise it the presumption is that the inconvenience is a less evil than the mischief to be apprehended if the restriction should be removed and the power extended, or that the existing inconvenience is the least of the two evils; and it should never be forgotten that the government ordained and established by the Constitution is a government “ of limited and enumerated powers,” and that to depart from the true import and meaning of those powers is to establish a new Constitution or to do for the people what they have not choseu to do for themselves, and to usurp the functions of a legislator and desert those of an expounder of the law., Arguments drawu from impolicy or inconvenience, says Judge Story, ought here to be of no weight, as “the only sound principle is to declare ita lex scripta est, to follow and to obey.”†
*634For these reasons I am of the opinion *bat the judgment in each of the. eases before the court should be reversed.

 Walker’s Science of Wealth, 124; Liverpool on Coins, 8.

 7 Jefferson’s Works, 462.

 Constitution, art. 8, clause 5.

 Huskisson on Depreciation of Currency. 22 Financial Pamphlets, 579.

 1 Laws of the U. S., 1st ed., 640 ; 1 Curtis’s History of the Constitution, 443; 10 Journals of Congress (Dunlap’s ed.), 225; 1 Life of Gouverneur Morris, 273; 11 Journals of Congress, 179.

 1 Stat. at Large, 24; Ib. 29.

 Ib. 65.

 1 Laws of the U. S. 647; 10 Journals of Congress, 225; 11 Id. 254; 8 Stat. at Large, 80.

 1 Stat. at Large, 248, 250.

 7 Journals of Congress, 286.

 13 Hening’s Statutes (Va.), 478; Laws of New Hampshire, 240.

 2 Laws of Massachusetts, 657 ; Revised Laws of Rhode Island, p. 319; 5 Statutes of South Carolina, 262.

 M. & C. Dig. (Ga.), 33; 3 Laws of New York, Greeln. ed. 363.

 4 Stat. at Large, 699.

 5 Stat. at Large, 137.

 9 Id. 397.

 10 Id. 160

 12 Stat. at Large, 345.

 Hepburn v. Griswold, 8 Wallace, 618; 12 Stat. at Large, 370, 532, 710, 822.

 8 Wallace, 614, 625.

 7 Jefferson’s Works, 472; 22 Financial Pamphlets, 417; Horner’s Bullion Report.

 McCullock, Commercial Dictionary, edition of 1869, 380.

 2 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary; 648; 7 Jefferson’s Works, 472; Jefferon’s Correspondence, 133.

 4 Stat. at Large, 278; 5 Id. 133; 14 Id. 339.

 2 Story on the Constitution (3d ed.), § 1122; Kawle on the Constitution, 102; Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 596; Pomeroy on the.Constitution, 263.

 2 Story on the Constitution, g 1122.

 2 Story on the Constitution, § 1118.

 Mill, Political iiconomy,"294.

 2 Phillips’s Paper Currency, 135; 9 Jefferson’s Works, 254, 289; 6 Sparks, Washington’s Letters, 321.

 Sibbald v. United States, 12 Peters, 492; Bridge Co. v. Stewart, 3 Howard, 424; Peck v. Sanderson, 18 Id. 42 ; Noonan v. Bradley, 12 Wallace, 121.

 Griswold v. Hepburn, 2 Duvall, 20.

 14 Stat. at Large, 209.

 16 Id. 44.

 Walker's Science of Wealth, 127.

 1 Smith’s Wealth of Nations, 35.

 McCullock’s Commercial Dictionary (ed. 1869), 894; Mill’s Political Economy, 294; 7 Jefferson’s Works, 490.

 3 Madison Papers, 1442.

 3 Madison Papers, 1344; 5 Elliott’s Debates, 434, 485.

 2 Curtis’s History of the "Constitution, 364.

 1 Elliott’s Debates, 492; 2 Id. 486; 4 Id. 184; Ib. 334, 336; 3 Id. 290, 472, 478; 1 Id. 369, 370.

 1 Id. 376.

 federalist, No. 44; Ibid. No. 42.

 Hist, of the Bank of the United States, 21, 24, 32.

 2 Stat at Large, 766; 3 Id 100.

 3 Id. 315.

 Ib. 266.

 Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, 27 New York, 42.

 4 Webster’s Works, 271; Thorndike v. United States, 2 Mason, 18.

 5 Stat. at Large, 201; Ib. 469; 9 Id. 118; 11 Id. 257.

 2 Phillips’s Paper Currency, 135; 6 Sparks’s Letters of Washington, 321.

 Legal Tender Cases, 11 Wallace, 682.

 History of the Bank of the United States, 95.

 McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 421.'

 Collector v. Day, 11 Wallace, 113; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Id. 418.

 History of tlie Bank of the United States, 95.

 Hepburn v. Griswold, 8 Wallace, C08.

 22 Financial Pamphlets, 580.

 4 Webster’s Works, 271.

 4 Id. 280.

 United States v. Marigold, 9 Howard, 567.

 2 Howard, 38.

 Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheaton, 265.

 Ib. 288.

 United States v. Marigold, 9 Howard, 567; Gwin v. Breedlove, 2 Id 38; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Peters, 434;

 Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Peters, 317; Fox v. Ohio, 5 Howard, 433.

 4 Wheaton, 204.

 Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheaton, 205.

 2 Story on the Constitution, 3d ed. 249; Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Peters, 337; 1 Jefferson’s Correspondence, 401; American Almanac for 1830, p. 183.

 1 Elliott’s Debates, 369.

 Federalist, No. 44.

 2 Journals of Congress, 21; 3 Id. 20; 2 Pitkin’s History, 155-6.'

 2 Story on the Constitution, 3d ed., §§ 1359, 1360; 2 Pitkin’s History, 57; 1 Jefferson’s Correspondence, 402.

 Pomeroy on the Constitution, § 409.

 1.0 Journals of Congress, 225; 11 Id. 179.

 Bronson v Rodes, 7 Wallace, 248; Butler v. Horwitz, Ib. 259; Bank v. Supervisors, Ib. 28.

 Dewing v. Sears, 11 Id. 379; Lane Co. v. Oregon, 7 Id. 73; Willard v Tayloe, 8 Id. 568.

 Bank of the United States v. Bank of Georgia, 10 Wheaton, 347; Thompson v. Riggs, 5 Wallace, 678; Robinson v. Noble, 8 Peters, 198; Wright v. Reid, 3 Term, 554; Snow v. Perry, 9 Pickering, 542; 2 Greenleaf on Evidence, § 601.

 Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheaton, 326; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Id. 405; 1 Story on the Constitution (3d ed.), § 417.

 1 Stat. at Large, 139.

 2 Stat at Large, 766

. 1 Id 142; Ib. 187; Ib. 345; Ib. 433; Ib. 607, 2 Id. 60; Ib. 245; Ib. 349; Ib. 610; Ib. 656; Ib. 694.

 5 Id. 202; 9 Id. 64; 4 Id, 7G5; 2 Id. 766; Ib. 801; 3 Id. 161; Ib. 213, 5 Id. 201; Ib. 228 ; Ib. 328 ; Ib. 469 ; Ib. 474; Ib. 581; Ib. 614; 9 Id. 39; Ib. 118; 11 Id. 257; 12 Id. 121; Ib. 179; Ib. 259; Ib. 313; Ib. 338.

 McCulloch v. Maryland; 4 Wheaton, 405.

 Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, 120.

 1 Story on the Constitution, 3d ed., § 426.