LEGAL-TENDER CASES. A series of eases before the Supreme Court of the United States involving the question whether certain acts of Congress, declaring the notes of the United States lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts public and private within the United States, except duties on imports and interest on the public debt, were constitutional. The first ease, which brought the question squarely before the court. was Hepburn v. Griswold (S Wallace, 6031, a case in which the Court of Errors of Kentucky had held the acts of Congress above mentioned uneonstitutional. It was first argued at the Devember term, I867, reargued at the Deeem ber term, 1868, and decided November 27, 1869, by a divided court. Chief Justice Chase and Associate Justices Nelson, Clifford. Field. and Grier wore for the affirmance of the decision of the court below, while Justices Swayne, and Davis dissented. In April. 1869, an act was passed increasing the number of associate justices of the Supreme Court from seven to eight. Early in 1876 Justice Grier resigned. and Justices 13radley and Strong were appointed to the vacancies. After this reeonstruction of the court.
motion 1.1•1: made for the reargumnent of Hep burn r. Griswold. which was granted by a vote of five to four. and the constitutional questid n was again eonsidered and decided in May, 1871. Again was the court divided. this time a majority, consisting of Swayne, Davis. Bradley, and Strom*, upheld the constitn tionality of the act. while Chief Justice Chase and Justices Nelson. Clifford. and Field dissented. (Legal-Tender Cases, 12 Wallace. 457.) All of the judges agreed that Congress had the power to direct issues of paper currency. '(lie difference of opinion related solely to its power to make such currency a legal tender. especially for existing debts. The majority in Hepburn v. Griswold, who were the minority in the later eases. held that this power was neither specific ally granted by the Constitution, nor was it necessary to the accomplishment of any granted power. Moreover, they deemed the statutes un constitutional because they impaired the obliga tion of contracts and amounted to a taking of private property for public use without compen sation. It was admitted by the minority in Hepburn v. Griswold, and the majority in the later eases, that the law. did impair the obligation of contracts made before their passage. but it was said, "While the Constitution forbids States to pass such it not forbid Congress." The
Fifth Amendment. which forbids taking private property for public use without just compensa tion or due process of law, it was declared, had always been understood as referring only to a direct appropriation, and not to consequential in juries resulting from the exercise of lawful power. And, finally, it was held that the statutes were passed in the proper exercise of the power to borrow money and maintain the army and navy in time of war.
In 1878 Congress directed that the legal-tender notes of the United States which were redeemed, or received into the Treasury from any source, should be reissued and kept in circulation. As the final decision in the legal-tender cases above referred to had been rested in part upon the necessity of the earlier legislation as a war meas ure, the validity of the act of 1S78 was assailed with much confidence. However, with but a single dissent (that of .Justice Field), the court held that Congress has power to make United States notes a legal tender in the payment of private debts in time of peace as well as in time of war. "Congress." said the court, "has the power to issue the obligations of the United States in such form, and to impress upon them such qualities as currency for the purchase of merchandise and the payment of debts as accord with the usage of sovereign governments. The power, as incident to the power of borrowing money. and issuing bills or notes of the Govern ment for money borrowed, of impressing upon those bills or notes the quality of being a legal tender for the payment of private debts, was a power universally understood to belong to sover eignty in Europe and America at the time of the framing and adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The governments of Europe, act ing through the monarch or the legislature, ac cording to the distribution of powers under their respective constitutions. had and have as sover eign a power of issuing paper money as of stamping coin." This decision has closed all judicial discussion. and declares the rule of law upon this point. Whether a national paper cur rency shall be a legal tender is now a question for the political forum only. Consult: Legal nnder rase, dui(Hard v. Greenman (110 U. S..
421, 1SS4) : Thayer. "Legal Tender." in Ilarrarel Lam Peri( m (1,887) : Bancroft. .t Plea for the Constitution (New York. issr) : Miller. Lectures on the Constitution of the Coiled States (New York, 1891).