Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 12.djvu/100

LEGAL TENDER. 88 nuteness by modern statutes. In Great Britain iiauk of England notes are a legal tender for any sum above to. llold coins of the Royal Mint, unless diniinislicd in weight below the statutory standard, are a legal tender for a paj-ment of any amount ; its silver coins for an amount nut exceeding forty shillings; its bronze coins for an amount not exceeding one shilling. The Crown, with the advice of the Privy Council, may by proclamation declare foreign or colonial coins legal tender. In this country, under the Federal Constitution and statutes, the various gold coins of the National Mint, the notes of the United States, ordinarily called greenbacks, and a specified ela.ss of United States Treasury notes are a legal tender for debts of any amoiuit. Sil- ver dollars are a legal tender "for all debts, ex- cept where otherwise expressly stipulated in the contract;" wliile the other silver coins (the half-dollar, (|uarter-dollar. and dime) are a legal tender for an amount not exceeding ten dollars. Elinor coins (the five-cent piece and the cent) are tenderable for an amount not exceeding twentv-five cents. Consult: 3 and 4 William IV. ch. 98, § 0; The Coinage Act, 1870, 33 and 34 Vict., ch. 10; United States Constitution, Art. 1, 8 10; United States Revised Statutes, §§3584- 3590, as amended ; also the authorities referred to under Coxtbact. LEGAL-TENDEB CASES. A series of cases before the Supreme Court of the United States involving the question ^hether certain acts of Congress, declaring the notes of the Inited States lawful money an<i a legal lender 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 case, which brought the question squarely before the court, was Hepburn r. Griswold (8 Wallace, 603). a case in which the Court of Errors of Kentucky had held the acts of Congress above mentioned unconstitutional. It was first argued at the December term, 1807, reargued at the Decem- ber term, 1868, and decided November 27, 1869, by a divided court. Chief .Justice Chase and Associate .Justices Xelson, Clifford. Field, and Grier were for the affirmance of the decision of the court below, while .Justices Miller, Swaj-ne. 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 1870 Justice Grier resigned, and .Justices Bradley and Strong were appointed to the vacancies. After this reconstruction of the court, a motion was made for the rcargument of Hep- bum i;. Griswold, which was granted by a vote of five to four, and the constitutional "question was again considered and decided in May, 1871. Again was the court divided, but this "time a majority, consisting of Justices Miller. Swayne, Davis. Bradley, and Strong, upheld the const it.u- tionality of the act, while Chief Justice Chase and Justices Xelson, 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. The r'ifference 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 cases, held that this power was neither specific- ally granted by the Constitution, nor was it necessary to the accomplishment of any granted LEGABE. power. Jioreover, they deemed the statutes un- constitutional because they impaired the obliga- tion of contracts and amounted to a taking of private property for public u.se without compen- sation. It was admitted by the minority in Hepburn v. Griswold, and the majority in the later cases, that the laws did impair the obligation of contracts made before their passage, but it was .said, "While the Constitution forbids States to pass such laws, it does 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 1878 was assailed with much confidence. However, with but a single dissent (that of Ju.stice Field), the court held that Congress has power to make United States notes a legal tender in the pa.vnient 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 ujjon 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 pionareh 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 Trnder Case. ■/uiJliard v. flrcennmn (110 U. S., 421. 1884) ; Thayer. "Legal Tender," in Harvard Law liei-iew (1887): Bancroft. .1 Plea for the Constitution (New York. 1886) ; Miller. Lectures on the Constitution of the United States (New York, 1891). LEGAE:^, le-gre'. Hugh Sw^^-TO^- (1797- 1843). An American jurist and statesman, bom in Charleston. S. C. of Huguenot stock. .January 2. 1797. He died in Boston. Mass.. June 2. 1843. Though delicate, he was well educated at South Carolina College : then studied law for three years, visited Edinburgh, where he completed his ediieation. and traveled on the Continent. Re- turning home, he devoted himself to planting for a time, was soon elected to the Legisla-