Court Opinion

ID: 3594308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:42:09.668605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:52.334246
License: Public Domain

The subject of private contracts, embracing the manner in which they may be made, and in which they may be discharged, lies within the domain of State legislation. The States were distinct political communities at the formation of the Constitution, retaining, notwithstanding the confederation under which they associated during the *Page 526 
revolutionary contest, nearly all the powers of municipal government and local administration. It was not the system of the Constitution to abolish or materially abridge these powers of the State governments, though they were subjected to some important restraints and qualifications, all of which, however, assume, so far as private contracts between citizen and citizen are concerned, the general jurisdiction of the States over the subject. Contracts when once made in conformity to the laws of the State, cannot, according to a provision of the Constitution of the United States, be impaired by state legislation. But it may be done by Congress incidentally. Under the power to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy, for example, debtors may be discharged from their obligations, through the agency of the general government. Nor is this all. Many express powers of great importance, and which were considered, and were in fact, necessary to the existence and perpetuation of the national government, were conferred upon Congress; which was, moreover, invested with the power to make all laws which should be necessary and proper for carrying these powers into execution. In exercising these federal powers, it has sometimes happened, and it may occur again in more ways than can be enumerated or anticipated, that the pecuniary and business arrangements of citizens may be interfered with, and their contracts, though lawfully valid when made, may be annulled or modified. Under the power to regulate commerce, and to declare war, acts may become impossible or unlawful, which were before legitimate subjects of business stipulations, and in respect to which such stipulations had been actually entered into. These are the necessary results of another provision of the Constitution which declares, in effect, that itself, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance of it, and public treaties, shall be the supreme law of the land, and shall prevail against the State constitutions and laws, when in conflict with them. But with these qualifications the whole subject of private property, its acquisition and forfeiture, its mode of enjoyment and transmission between living persons, and its devolution by will and upon *Page 527 
intestacy, and all executed and executory contracts respecting it, are to be regulated wholly by the laws of the respective states.
It seemed necessary to state these principles, for, although no question has been made respecting them, they have an important bearing upon the controversy which we are called upon to decide, and, indeed, form the basis of all just reasoning, upon the powers of the general government. The mortgage executed by Bowne and his wife to the defendant, the alleged payment of which was in question in this case, was a lawful contract, by which real estate in this State was conveyed to the latter to secure the payment of a certain amount of money. It is stated to be payable in lawful money of the United States of America, but I lay no stress upon that expression. It was a security for the payment of money, and that is all which seems to me important. The lands thus conveyed by way of mortgage have been transferred to the plaintiff subject to the lien; and he claims a right to pay the debt and redeem the incumbrance, by giving to the creditor, the defendant, an amount equal to the principal and interest, in the treasury notes of the United states, issued pursuant to the late act of Congress. The defendant refuses to accept these notes as payment, and the question is, whether he is compellable by law to do so. The contract was a valid one under the laws of this State, and it calls for the payment of a certain sum of money. The question as to what shall amount to payment or performance, is,prima facie, one which is to be determined by the State laws. The federal Constitution, which is a part of the law of the State, prohibits anything being made a tender in payment of debts, by State authority, but gold and silver coin. It is clear, therefore, that the offer of the treasury notes was not a lawful tender of payment, unless the act was a legitimate measure for the execution of one or more of the powers which the Constitution has conferred upon Congress. That act declares in express terms that the treasury notes of the class which were offered to the defendant, shall be lawful money and a legal tender for all debts, public and *Page 528 
private, within the United States, except duties on imports and interest on government bonds and notes. (39th Cong., 2d Sess., ch. 33, § 1.) The single question in this case is, whether Congress had the constitutional right to enact this law; and that depends upon a comparison of its provisions with the powers with which the Constitution has clothed Congress. The problem to be determined is, whether the relation of means and end exists between them. I shall confine myself to that feature of the law which provides for forced payment of private debts; for it is not doubted by any one that the government may declare its own obligations receivable in payment of debts due itself.
It has been argued that there is no warrant in the Constitution for the issue of federal securities for the purpose of being used as a currency, though unaccompanied with a provision making them a legal tender among individuals. If this position could be established, the notes which were tendered in this case being illegal, would be ineffectual for any purpose. In the view I have been compelled to take of the principal question, this subordinate one is not necessary to be considered. It is proper, however, to say that it could scarcely become a judicial question in any case. The right to issue the obligations of the government for money borrowed, or for property or services furnished for national purposes is not and cannot be questioned. The form and denomination of such securities are matters which belong to the discretion of the government making them; and if an issue could be raised upon the intent to have them circulate as the representative of money, I should still think that it would be legally unobjectionable to so accommodate them to the business wants of the community, as to make it the interest of successive holders to continue them in circulation, and thus benefit the treasury by deferring the time of their presentment for payment. It has been urged that such issues of paper would be an emission of bills of credit, as understood at the time the Constitution was framed, and that the making of them was expressly forbidden to the States, and not committed to Congress. *Page 529 
In support of this view it is shown that an express authority to issue such paper was at one time inserted in the draft of the Constitution, in connection with the power to borrow money, but was stricken out on the motion of a deputy from New York. Upon an examination of the extract from the debates which was referred to in the argument, I am of opinion that it cannot be affirmed that this change was made from an intention positively to prohibit the issue of such obligations, but that it was done from the apprehension that if the power to make them was expressly conferred, the legislature might, under the idea of declaring their effect, have engrafted upon them the quality of a legal tender. If the authority was left as an incident to the power to borrow money, purchase property, or pay debts, no such consequence, it was thought, would follow. If it had been designed to prohibit their issue, under any circumstances, by the government of the Union as well as by the States, it is presumed that a similar prohibition would have been applied in terms. If the effect of this debate was different from what I conclude it to be, I should still hesitate to allow it any considerable weight in construing the Constitution. The only safe way, in my opinion, to deal with that instrument is to look at its language in connection with its contemporaneous history and the known circumstances of the times, and to attach such meaning to it as we conceive the people who adopted it would have given. I shall assume, therefore, that there does not exist any constitutional objection to the currency which was issued under the act of Congress, which we are considering; and that the only question which we can entertain arises upon the mandate that the notes shall be a legal tender in the payment of private debts.
The express power committed to the general government "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin," and the denial of that power to the States, may be considered as a further qualification of the State jurisdiction over private contracts. Without these provisions the right to determine what should constitute money in transactions between *Page 530 
citizens, would have remained, along with the mass of general legislation, in the several State governments. But the inconvenience which had arisen from the different denominations of money which were in use in the several States, and which had grown out of their separate existence as colonies, and the desire to establish a system of coined money upon the decimal principle, which should accurately represent the money of account, led to the vesting of the power over the subject of coined money in the new government.
I shall spend no time in proving that the coining power referred to relates, and is limited, to the fabrication and regulation of coins properly so called. I have carefully considered the ingenious argument on that subject, which has been submitted orally and in writing by one of the counsel who maintain the validity of the legal tender provision; but those suggestions have not created in my mind the slightest doubt that the language is to be understood in its most obvious and natural sense. Coins are, in our language, pieces of metallic money; and the coining of money is the formation of such pieces by such mechanical means as are appropriate to such an operation. There is not the smallest reason to suppose that the word was used in the Constitution in any non-natural, recondite or figurative sense.
The language is, to my mind, so distinct and precise as not to admit of reasoning. But if it were in any manner equivocal, the connection in which it is found in the several places where it is used in the Constitution would determine its meaning to be such as I have mentioned. In the principal clause the value of the coin to be made is to be regulated by Congress; but this could not be predicated of the obligations of individuals or of governments, the value of which is either the absolute amount stipulated to be paid, or their worth, arising out of the fluctuating considerations of the pecuniary means and ability of the promisors, and the interest to be paid, and the time of payment of the principal — the last of which circumstances must vary every day by the efflux of time. The value of foreign coin is also to be regulated, *Page 531 
but it is impossible to suppose that this could refer to securities executed in foreign countries. Then in the clause referring to the punishment of counterfeiting, a sharp distinction is apparent between the public securities and the current coin of the United States; and in the clause prohibitory of the power of the States, it is forbidden to them to coin money and to emit bills of credit, which plainly shows that these are separate and distinct acts; and in the same sentence, where the prohibition is inserted against making anything but the precious metals a tender, it is called gold and silver coin. If the determination of the case depended upon the meaning of the express power to coin money, I should not, as I have mentioned, be able to entertain the smallest doubt that it does not embrace the obligations of the general government in whatever form they may be issued.
Let us then consider whether the power to make these notes a legal tender results from any of the express powers conferred on Congress. Among the attributes expressly conferred is the very extensive power to regulate commerce; and the enactment of the legal tender provision has sometimes been referred to that clause. But it has no bearing upon the transactions of citizens, which are limited to a single State; the power relating only to commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. This enactment does not propose to regulate foreign or inter-state commerce, or to be in any sense a regulation of that subject. It compels the citizens in all places, and at all times, and under all circumstances to receive the treasury notes in payment of debts, whether these debts had any connection with a commercial transaction, or were wholly foreign to and independent of it. Whether a law introducing the treasury notes into foreign and inter-state commerce, and compelling their reception as money when offered in connection with transactions of that nature, could be sustained, will perhaps depend upon some considerations, to which I shall presently advert.
It may be said that any measure which tends to promote internal traffic and facilitate domestic exchanges would incidentally *Page 532 
influence foreign commerce. The same may be said respecting the whole subject of private exchanges and contracts. But to embrace all these subjects within the power to regulate commerce, would be to break down all distinctions between the national and state governments, and commit the whole subject of internal government to the discretion of Congress.
I concede that it is not incumbent upon those who argue for the validity of the legal tender clause to select any one express power and to maintain that the provision is a legitimate execution of that power. They may group together any number of these grants of legislative authority, and if the right to enact that provision is fairly deducible from any or all of them — their position is established. The power to raise money for raising and maintaining a public force by land and by sea, to pay the public debts, and indeed nearly all of the enumerated powers, require or at least suppose the necessity of the obtaining, possessing, managing and disbursing moneys to a large and indefinite amount. No idea can be formed of the government of a great country, though the power of legislation should be restricted to external affairs, which would not require such government to be an immense dealer in money and commodities of almost every kind. The strong public necessity for obtaining pecuniary means to carry on the government and to effectuate the great purposes for which it was established, have not been and cannot be overstated, whether we advert to the imminent crisis which is this day upon us, or consider it in its usual condition of peace and tranquility. It was quite appropriate to advert to the present condition of the country to show that the necessity for obtaining funds may be so sudden, fluctuating and spasmodic that the public needs will not wait upon the regular receipts of revenue, but must sometimes be met by extraordinary exertions, and entail pecuniary sacrifices upon the public and individuals. Still the Constitution furnishes the measure of the national authority, in war as in peace; and, as judges, our duties are limited to the construction of that instrument, according to our best judgment *Page 533 
of its actual meaning. The immediate question is, therefore, as has been stated, whether the various powers committed to Congress which require, in order to their due execution, the acquisition and use of large and often fluctuating amounts of money, empower the national government to annex to the notes, which I concede it has a right to issue, a quality which shall compel individuals to receive them in payment of debts against their will.
It is a circumstance connected with the inquiry, though not material to the view which I take, that by the arrangements of the act the notes are not payable in coin; for the quality which makes them receivable for all public and private debts, authorizes the government to redeem them in other notes of the same kind, so that they are to constitute a medium of payment and exchange which is to be quite distinct from gold and silver money and not convertible into it, and which, by the well known laws of currency, will displace the latter from circulation, and will cause it to depreciate, in comparison with that standard, in proportion to the amounts which may be issued. To force them upon the creditor as payment contrary to the general laws of the States, which do not authorize debtors thus to discharge their obligations, is to enter into the domain of the State legislature and to supersede, to that extent, the operation of the State laws. This is not necessarily a fatal objection, for if the provision annexing the quality of legal tender to the notes is a necessary and proper law for carrying into execution the powers expressly conferred upon Congress, and is not forbidden by any part of the Constitution, it changes or abrogates, by virtue of the pre-eminence attributed to federal legislation, when constitutional, all State laws and constitutions so far as the exigency of the case may require.
We are to consider, then, whether the provision in question is necessary and proper to the execution of the various enumerated powers which require the obtaining and disbursement of moneys for national purposes. And we observe, in the first place, that certain means are specifically provided by the Constitution for obtaining funds for public objects. Congress *Page 534 
is empowered to levy and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to an extent limited only by the public purposes to which moneys may be applied; and to borrow money to the like extent, on the credit of the United States. In addition to these means, it may dispose of the territory and other property of the United States, and of course may receive the equivalent for such disposition in money. I do not, at this moment, inquire whether the controverted provision is within any of these last mentioned express powers, namely, those of taxation and borrowing, but whether, under the other delegations of authority which require for their execution the possession of pecuniary means, it was competent for the government to oblige the citizen to accept these notes as cash, for the purpose of gaining, by means of the circulation which such a quality would give them, additional pecuniary resources for the purposes of the government. I am of opinion, that this would be quite too far removed from the delegation of power to be considered an enactment framed for its execution. I think, moreover, that the Constitution did not contemplate and does not admit of the raising of moneys from the people, except by taxation and by borrowing, or by the sale of the public lands and property. Pecuniary means gained by the circulation of paper not bearing interest, are the profits which bankers acquire by their peculiar business. It is a well known pursuit in which individuals may engage, by government license when that is required by law, and without it when it is not exacted by some legal requirement. I think that so far as the immediate question is concerned, the government has an equal right to authorize the national treasury to embark in any other of the pursuits of business by which money is acquired, as in this of making profits by the forced circulation of its notes, under this legal tender clause. Hence I conclude, that the disputed measure cannot be justified as an execution of any of the powers requiring the possession and authorizing the expenditure of money.
Then as to the express power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, which is the delegation of authority *Page 535 
principally relied on. The ordinary operation of effecting public loans is sufficiently simple and obvious, and I have already said that I perceive no valid objection to arranging the securities in such a form as that the lenders, and those who may take such securities by transfer, shall be willing to hold or circulate them, instead of immediately presenting them for redemption. The power to borrow money implies the giving of obligations for its repayment. The form of these is matter of convention between the parties to the loan, and is an incident of the principal power. To the extent which they will circulate upon the credit of the government, the incidental advantage is legitimately obtained.
But it is a step far beyond this to require that all persons shall receive them in payment of all manner of obligations. This has no natural relation to the contract of borrowing. The parties who are thus obliged to receive the borrower's obligations are not parties to the loan, and have no necessary connection with it. True, they are subjects, for some purposes, of the same political sovereignty which is the borrowing party, and if that sovereignty was universal in its objects, and was not restrained by constitutional limitations, the duty of receiving the obligations could be rightfully imposed like any other burden created by legislative authority. But private contracts and the manner in which they are to be performed and discharged or enforced are, as has been stated, embraced in the reserved rights of the States, and Congress has no general legislative power over the subject. If they have any power whatever, it is not direct, but oblique or collateral. If, in the execution of the enumerated powers, it becomes necessary and proper to enter upon the domain of State legislation, the State laws must yield. This may be made more plain by cases which may be supposed. The States have the general right to regulate the interest upon money loaned. Suppose a State legislature to enact that none of its citizens should loan money to any party, private or public, at a rate of interest above five per cent, and that Congress, considering the rate too low, should provide by law that seven per cent might be lawfully *Page 536 
required of any borrower by any lender. Such an act, of course, would be void, as an attempt to legislate upon a subject not committed to the general government, but reserved to the States. Yet there could be no objection to a statute of Congress which should authorize the borrowing of money upon the credit of the United States at any rate, however excessive, which it was thought expedient to allow and at which citizens might be willing to lend. This would necessarily change and modify the State lawpro tanto, but it would be sustained, because it would be a law made to carry into effect a power expressly conferred upon Congress, namely, the power to borrow money, which would embrace all the usual incidents of loans. Then suppose, that with a view to facilitate federal loans, and to give the public bonds a ready reception, Congress should attempt to subject all individual borrowing in the States to a low rate of interest, while the federal treasury was allowed to contract at a higher rate. This would bear some resemblance to the law which is now questioned, and yet it would be preposterous to consider it a law passed in the execution of the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.
The question how far an act of Congress could be considered to have been passed in the execution of an enumerated federal power has been discussed in a variety of forms as particular laws or projects of laws have come under consideration in the administrative, legislative and judicial branches of the government. The discussions most material to be considered, because they are absolutely authoritative with us, are the judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States. The debates in these cases have usually turned upon the words "necessary and proper," as used in the Constitution. To a certain extent the necessity and propriety of an enactment must rest in the discretion of the legislature. But to hold that the exercise of that discretion is final and not subject to the examination of the judiciary would be to break down all limitations upon the power of the general government. Accordingly, I think that no judge has ever intimated the existence of any such extreme doctrine. On the other hand *Page 537 
the question whether a given measure is the most suitable or efficient for the execution of an enumerated power must of course be left to the discretion of Congress, and that discretion cannot be reviewed by the courts. The difficulty lies in determining in a particular case whether the disputed enactment has such a relation to the power which it is said to be passed to carry into execution, that it can be affirmed to be necessary and proper for that purpose. The most thorough examination of the subject was that which was had on the several occasions when the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States came before the Supreme Court. (McCulloch v. The State of Maryland, 4 Wheat., 316; Osborn v. The United States Bank, 9 id., 738.) The act was sustained on the theory that it was a necessary arrangement for carrying on the financial operations of the government. It was not supposed to be absolutely necessary, but to be so in the sense of being appropriate and directly convenient and useful. That judgment is to be accepted by the state tribunals as a true exposition of the Constitution on this point; but the resemblance in principle between the legislation then in question and that which we are considering, is not so striking as to afford much aid in the present difficulty. The principles, however, announced by the eminent chief justice, seem to me to be irreconcilable with the validity of the legislation in question. It was conceded that the powers of the government were limited, and that those limits were not to be transcended; but it was maintained by a course of reasoning which cannot easily be controverted, that the national legislature possessed a discretion in the adoption of the means by which the powers conferred by the Constitution were to be carried out. It was conceded that the means must be such as were appropriate and were plainly adapted to the end authorized to be accomplished. In another part of the opinion it was intimated that the means, in order to be legitimate, and to fall within the qualifying words, necessary and proper, must be such as were either needful, requisite or conducive to the principal object embraced in the delegated power. Was it ever before supposed *Page 538 
to be incident to the contract of loan, that the rights of other persons, strangers to the transaction, were to be controlled or affected? Either the borrower or the lender may insist upon any stipulation to which the other will consent, and when the former is a sovereign State it may agree to any concessions on its own part not inconsistent with its constitutional limitations, and insist upon imposing any terms upon the lender which it may be thought expedient to require and to which he will consent. The arrangement of these mutual stipulations embraces all which is material or which can be appropriately attached to the contract of loan. A provision which is to control other parties not connected with the transaction, to their loss though to the advantage of the lender, cannot be appropriate, for it is foreign to the nature of the transaction and has never before been employed in connection with such arrangements. A consolidated government might annex such terms to the contract, for it has plenary authority over all its citizens when not constitutionally restrained. As to being needful, requisite or essential, it is not so in any sense which would enable the government to impose on the citizens who should have business relations with the holders of the securities, conditions which would only conciliate such holders.
The power which the Constitution confers upon the government to affect loans, is not one to be exercised in invitum, like the taxing power. It requires only a party willing to advance the funds upon the terms which may be offered, and it does not imply anything coercive as to any one. It requires a consenting party only; unlike the taxing power which implies legal coercion, and does not seek the consent of any other party.
But for a single authority, which I will now mention, I should think it very plain that the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, did not authorize Congress to compel individuals to accept treasury notes in discharge of private debts payable in money.
In Weston v. The City Council of Charleston (2 Pet., 449), it was held that the power to borrow money on the credit of the *Page 539 
United States contained in itself a prohibition to tax the securities given upon the loan by State authority. The tax, which was held illegal, was laid upon certain stock of the United States, eo nomine, and this court was of opinion that the case might have turned upon that circumstance, and that money invested by our citizens in federal loans was yet taxable along with the mass of the property of the citizens, under the laws of this State, which laws tax all property alike. (The People v. TheCommissioners of Taxes, c., 23 N.Y., 192.) On a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States, our judgment was reversed, that court disallowing the distinction on which we proceeded, and holding that the federal bonds were exempt from taxation in any form under State authority. An act of Congress had been passed, declaring in terms that the scrip of the public debt of the United States should not be subject to taxation by the states. A fortiori, a State tax imposed upon stock issued since the declaratory act mentioned, cannot be sustained in the Supreme Court. The principle has some analogy to the one we are examining. The laws of the States, on the subject of taxation for State purposes, are as fully within the reserved rights of the States, as those which relate to private contracts and the payment of individual debts. The general government has no jurisdiction respecting the legal arrangements which the States may make on either of these subjects; and yet it has been held, that the power to borrow money alone confers upon the securities given for loans a quality which no other property has, by exempting them from taxation. I hope it will not be attributed to an unreasonable pride of opinion that I feel compelled to say, that I have not been able to appreciate the reasons upon which that conclusion was reached. I, however, fully acknowledge the duty of following the adjudication of the supreme tribunal; and, since the judgment referred to was pronounced, we have conformed our decisions in similar cases to the rule laid down, and shall continue to do so. I think the law exempting the federal bonds from State taxation was as foreign to and as unconnected with the power to effect *Page 540 
federal loans, as that which declares the treasury notes a legal tender in the payment of debts, and I acknowledge the analogy which exists between the cases. But the judgments of the Supreme Court did not proceed upon reasons which would justify the legal tender clause. Those judgments, according to the published opinions, regarded the public bonds as instruments or means employed by Congress to carry out the power to make loans, and as of the same general nature as the Bank of the United States. It clothed them with an immunity, but did not propose to render them instruments of coercion. Finding this distinction to exist, I do not think it proper to act upon the analogy which I have conceded. I am, therefore, of opinion, that the clause in the act making the notes a good tender in the payment of private debts, cannot be sustained under the power to borrow money, nor under any other of the express powers conferred upon Congress.
But I am of opinion that the legal tender clause is repugnant to express provisions of the Constitution. I refer to the prohibition imposed upon the States to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, and to the provision which confers upon Congress the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin. These provisions are inpari materia, and must be considered in connection with each other, and I think the result of both is, that it was the settled determination of the convention, that compulsory payments should be made only in coin. This position is entirely distinct from the topic which I have thus far considered. If it were conceded that declaring the notes to be a legal tender was an allowable means for borrowing money upon them, still it could not be done if the fair result of other constitutional provisions were that coins of the precious metals were the only medium in which compulsory payments could be made. I have already considered the coining power in connection with the argument that it embraced in terms the power to fabricate money other than metallic coins, properly so called, and have nothing to add on that point. But it was the object of that provision to enable and to require *Page 541 
the general government to cause coins to be manufactured which should be impressed with the stamp of the national authority, should be received throughout the Union as absolutely authentic, and which should be deemed and taken in all transactions whatever, as money of the precise value indicated by the stamp of the national mint; and that they should in like manner prescribe the value of such foreign coins as they should think proper to have circulated as money. This provision belongs to the class to which I have referred as to some extent militating against the general system, which left to the State governments the regulation of private pecuniary dealings and contracts. That system, if unqualified, would allow the States to exclude any medium of payment not established by their own authority; but they cannot, consistently with the provision, disallow the absolute authenticity of the federal coins. But the power to create money does not extend beyond the fabrication of coins.
Hence, I am unable to find the ground for further intrusion into the field of State legislation respecting the money to be used in private transactions. The federal legislation respecting coined money is absolutely binding upon all the people of the Union, and, in my opinion, it is exclusive of any power, residing anywhere, to make any other description of money. The subject with which the convention was dealing was that of money which was to be authentic and authoritative everywhere throughout the Union. It prescribed coins, to be made by federal authority as such money, and was silent respecting any and every other kind of currency. The argument expressio unius exclusio alterius
applies, and would be of great force if there were no other, but a reason equally strong to my mind is, that the convention was acting upon a subject belonging generally to State jurisdiction, and cannot, with propriety, be understood as going beyond the provision actually made. The prohibition upon the State governments to coin money affords an invincible inference that the coins to be struck under the authority of Congress, were to be the only authentic money to be used in the United States. Certainly *Page 542 
there is an unavoidable implication, that nothing shall be done by any authority in the nation, which shall destroy the value and usefulness of this federal money. But can it be used for regulating exchanges and making payments, if another thing of less or even of different value is declared money? There cannot, in the nature of things, be two standards of value. If the treasury notes are of less value than the gold and silver coins, the latter will be superseded and become absolutely unavailable for all purposes for which money is required to be used; for no one will make use of a gold eagle, when with that coin he can purchase twelve or fifteen dollars, each of which will answer his purpose precisely as well as one-tenth of the eagle. The legal tender provision practically nullifies the coining power. For all practical purposes it converts the federal coins fabricated in obedience to the Constitution, into mere bullion. This appears to me plainly to conflict with the provision for the striking of such coins.
But the prohibition upon the States against making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, seems to me also conclusive upon the subject. The restraint, it must be remembered, is upon the sovereignty to whose jurisdiction this subject of debts and their payment belongs. The general government, as I have shown, had no power over that subject, except as it may be deduced incidentally from some express power. It should be further borne in mind, that the prohibitory mandate is not addressed to the State legislature alone, but to the judges as well. No authority of the States, legislative or judicial, can, by the terms of this clause, admit anything but coin fabricated from the precious metals to be a valid payment. It is to be observed also, that the inhibition is not limited to values created by State authority. That subject was provided against by the language forbidding the States to emit bills of credit. The word "anything" embraces all imaginable subjects of which payment might be predicated, irrespective of their material substance and of the authority by which they were created. To constitute payment there must be coins, that is, stamped pieces of *Page 543 
metal, and they must be composed of the precious metals. When the State legislatures, which are to establish the legal principles respecting payments, and the courts which are judicially to determine what shall be payments in any given instance, are forbidden by paramount and supreme authority to make anything but coins struck from the precious metals a payment, the natural, and I think, the inevitable result is, that nothing except such coins can be adjudged to be payment in any case whatever. And when, in connection with such inhibition, we find ample provision made by the same supreme authority, for the supply of such coins by fabrication, and by the adoption of those coming from abroad, I cannot doubt that it was the persistent design of the Constitution, which contains these mandates, to require as a fundamental policy the exclusion of everything else than the coins indicated from the attribute of compulsory payments. We are to-day asked, by our judgment, to make the treasury notes of the United States a payment of the debt owing to the defendant. Our answer ought, I think, to be that we are forbidden by the supreme law of the Union to do it. That law has no regard to the value of the thing offered as a substitute, or to the authority by which it was created. It is forbidden absolutely and under all circumstances.
An argument has been somewhat pressed upon us, arising out of the action of Congress upon the subject of legal tender. After providing for the establishing of the mint and regulating the amounts of pure gold and silver to be contained in, and the value of the various coins to be struck, the legislature has, at various times, from an early period of the government, declared those coins to be a legal tender for the payment of all debts and demands. The argument is, that there is nothing in the Constitution expressly enabling Congress to declare any thing to be a legal tender, and yet that body has, with universal public acquiescence, passed the several acts referred to. Hence it is insisted, that the power of establishing a legal tender has been universally conceded to exist, and if the power exist, it is within the legislative discretion to determine *Page 544 
as to what shall be made such tender. In point of fact, the coins which have been declared a tender are such as were composed of gold and silver, with sufficient of alloy of baser metals to give them the requisite consistency for convenient use. My opinion upon this point is, that the power to coin money and regulate its value, is an authority to make money which shall be legally such in every part of the Union and for every purpose for which money shall be required or needed to be used. The coins to be struck are national coins and money, and so of those which are adopted, and the value of which is declared, and where any law, State or national, or any other lawful exigency calls for the payment of money as such, this national money is the thing indicated.
The word money, as used in the Constitution, ex vi termini,
implies all that is expressed by the words legal tender, and without the use of these words in the acts of Congress, the coins struck at the national mint, and the foreign coins, the value of which has been regulated by Congress, could be used in forced payments in all cases. The express provisions respecting legal tender are employed for the purpose of explanation, and are only declaratory of the effect of the national currency when offered for the purpose of payment. In reference to what had been said respecting the ability of Congress to debase the national currency, I am of the opinion that the several clauses respecting coining and what may be made a legal tender by the States, together amount to a direction that the money to be created under the clause respecting coining, shall be composed of the precious metals, as a principal ingredient, and that coins not composed of these substances cannot constitutionally be made national money or legal tender.
I have examined this question, and have come to a conclusion upon it, as though it involved no other consequences than the recovery or the failure to recover the small sum of money claimed by the defendant, and I do not know of any other method of considering a judicial question involving pecuniary considerations. The extended and very able discussion at the bar, in which considerations of a public character have been *Page 545 
largely pressed upon us, have had the effect, to which they were certainly entitled, of inducing caution and very mature deliberation upon the legal points involved, but they cannot legitimately have any further influence.
I shall be well satisfied if a majority of my brethren, and the federal court in which our decision will ultimately be reviewed, can reconcile the legislation which the defendant challenges with a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. It is not to be denied that it constitutes a part of a plan of public finance which, whether wisely organized or not, it is extremely important in the present crisis to maintain if it can properly be done. If my sense of duty would allow me to decide the case, as I should wish the law under the circumstances of this moment temporarily to be, I would unite in a judgment which should establish the validity of these legal tender notes; for the preservation of the federal Union, which is said to be involved, is the most ardent, I may say passionate desire of my heart; and no one, I think, can honestly pretend that this can be accomplished except by the vigorous employment of the armed force of the nation. To that purpose, the realization and expenditure of immense pecuniary resources are plainly indispensable. No man can have a stronger sense of the absolute causelessness, nay, the utter wickedness of the insurrection than that which I entertain — or of the duty of every citizen, whether in public office or a private station, to yield to the constituted authorities upon all questions of policy or expediency, not only implicit obedience, but a sincere and generous confidence and cooperation.
But we are placed here to determine the law as we understand it to be, in the controversies which are brought before us, and I should forfeit my own self-respect if I could unite in a judgment affirming the constitutional validity of the legislation in question, believing, as I must, that its provisions are repugnant to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
SELDEN, J., concurred in the conclusions of DENIO, Ch. J.
Judgment affirmed in the first case, and reversed in the second. *Page 546