Legal Tender Cases

Last updated

The Legal Tender Cases were two 1871 United States Supreme Court cases that affirmed the constitutionality of paper money. The two cases were Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis .

Contents

The U.S. federal government had issued paper money known as United States Notes during the American Civil War, pursuant to the terms of the Legal Tender Act of 1862. In the 1869 case of Hepburn v. Griswold , the Court had held that the Legal Tender Act violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase did not hold that Congress lacked the power to issue paper money, but rather ruled that the notes could not be used as legal tender for pre-existing debts. The Supreme Court overruled Hepburn v. Griswold in the Legal Tender Cases, holding that United States Notes could be used to repay preexisting debts.

Obverse of the first $1 bill, issued in 1862 as a legal tender note featuring Treasury Secretary Chase, who later held as Chief Justice that such bills are unconstitutional, before being overturned US $1 1862 Legal Tender.jpg
Obverse of the first $1 bill, issued in 1862 as a legal tender note featuring Treasury Secretary Chase, who later held as Chief Justice that such bills are unconstitutional, before being overturned

The Legal Tender Cases primarily involved the constitutionality of the Legal Tender Act of 1862, 12  Stat.   345, enacted during the American Civil War. [1] The paper money depreciated in terms of gold and became the subject of controversy, particularly because debts contracted earlier could be paid in this cheaper currency. [2]

Chief Justice Chase described the sequence of events:

Now, then, let it be considered what has actually been done in the provision of a National currency. In July and August, 1861, and February, 1862, the issue of sixty millions of dollars in United States notes, payable on demand, was authorized. They were made receivable in payments, but were not declared a legal tender until March, 1862, when the amount in circulation had been greatly reduced by receipt and cancellation. In 1862 and 1863 the issue of four hundred and fifty millions in United States notes, payable not on demand, but, in effect, at the convenience of the government, was authorized, subject to certain restrictions as to fifty millions. These notes were made receivable for the bonds of the National loans, for all debts due to or from the United States, except duties on imports and interest on the public debt, and were also declared a legal tender. In March, 1863, the issue of notes for parts of a dollar was authorized to an amount not exceeding fifty millions of dollars. These notes were not declared a legal tender, but were made redeemable under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. In February, 1863, the issue of three hundred millions of dollars in notes of the National banking associations was authorized. These notes were made receivable to the same extent as United States notes, and provision was made to secure their redemption, but they were not made a legal tender. [3]

Hepburn v. Griswold

In Hepburn v. Griswold (1870), Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase held for a 5–3 majority [4] of the Court that the Act was an unconstitutional violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment:

It is quite clear, that whatever may be the operation of such an act, due process of law makes no part of it. Does it deprive any person of property? A very large proportion of the property of civilized men exists in the form of contracts. These contracts almost invariably stipulate for the payment of money. And we have already seen that contracts in the United States, prior to the act under consideration, for the payment of money, were contracts to pay the sums specified in gold and silver coin. [5]

We are obliged to conclude that an act making mere promises to pay dollars a legal tender in payment of debts previously contracted, is not a means appropriate, plainly adapted, really calculated to carry into effect any express power vested in Congress; that such an act is inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution; and that it is prohibited by the Constitution. [6]

Ironically, Chief Justice Chase had played a role in formulating the Legal Tender Act of 1862, in his previous position as Secretary of the Treasury. On the same day that Hepburn was decided, President Ulysses Grant nominated two new justices to the Court, Joseph Bradley and William Strong, although Grant later denied that he had known about the decision in Hepburn when the nominations were made. [7]

Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis

Justices Bradley and Strong subsequently voted to reverse the Hepburn decision, in Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis, by votes of 5–4. [8]

Juilliard v. Greenman

The constitutionality of the Act was more broadly upheld thirteen years later in Juilliard v. Greenman . [9]

Background about constitutionality of paper money

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution explicitly forbids the states from issuing "bills of credit" (promissory notes) or making anything but gold and silver coin legal "tender". There are no corresponding explicit prohibitions limiting the power of the federal government, nor are there any explicit authorizations. The Tenth Amendment refers to reserved powers that only the states can exercise, as well as powers not delegated that continue to reside in the people. "Concurrent powers" also exist, which may be exercised by either the states or the federal government, such as the power to repel invasions, and arguably including power to make legal tender (e.g. in federal territories or elsewhere). Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically gives Congress power to "borrow money" and also power to "coin money and regulate the value" of both U.S. and foreign coins, and regulate interstate commerce, but does not explicitly and unambiguously grant Congress the power to print paper money or make it legal tender.

The federal government first issued paper money in 1861 to fund the Civil War. [10] Before that, all U.S. paper money was bank-issued money. For example, paper notes were issued by the First Bank of the United States, which was a private corporation chartered by the federal government. [11] Congress had also authorized paper money (e.g. Continentals) even before the Constitution was adopted. The Continental was issued by both the individual states and the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation. Those Articles specifically allowed the issuance of legal tender paper money, at the time called "bills of credit". [12]

In Hepburn, Chief Justice Chase noted, "No one questions the general constitutionality, and not very many, perhaps, the general expediency of the legislation by which a note currency has been authorized in recent years. The doubt is as to the power to declare a particular class of these notes to be a legal tender in payment of pre-existing debts." [13]

Original intent and original meaning

Originalists like Robert Bork have objected to enforcing the intentions of those framers who may have believed that paper money should be prohibited: "Scholarship suggests that the Framers intended to prohibit paper money. Any judge who thought today he would go back to the original intent really ought to be accompanied by a guardian rather than be sitting on a bench." [14] According to law professor Michael Stokes Paulson, "Among the most common canards in critiques of originalism is that, under the original meaning of the Constitution, the issuance of paper money as legal tender would be unconstitutional, sending our economy into disarray." [15]

Regarding paper money, Nathaniel Gorham explained at the Constitutional Convention that he "was for striking out" an explicit power of Congress to issue paper money, but Gorham was also against "inserting any prohibition". [16] That is what ultimately happened at the Convention: language explicitly giving the federal government power to issue legal tender paper money was removed on a vote of 9–2, but an option allowing the issuance together with a prohibition against making it legal tender was not acted upon. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress power to "borrow money on the credit of the United States", and therefore Gorham envisioned that "The power [e.g. to emit promissory paper], as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing." [17] The power to emit paper money (e.g. bank notes) has been justified by invoking the Necessary and Proper Clause in combination with the other enumerated powers which include the power to borrow money. [18] The power to "issue bills of credit" is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as a prohibition on the States, and could therefore be interpreted as a power so momentous that it would have to be conferred explicitly on the federal government rather than inferred from the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not entirely clear whether or not the framers intended such an interpretation, nor did the Supreme Court adopt such an interpretation in the Legal Tender Cases or subsequently.

James Madison's notes, from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, include a footnote where he says that the Constitution would not allow the federal government to use paper as currency or legal tender, though there is no indication whether or not the contents of his footnote were uttered aloud at the Convention. [19] Thereafter, during the ratification debates, the Federalist Papers No. 44 (assumed to be authored by Madison) said that prohibiting states from emitting "bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity." He further stated that the issuance of paper money by the states had resulted in "an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice of the power which has been the instrument of it." [20]

See also

Related Research Articles

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. The Court's landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals, and helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article One of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding Congress

Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Under Article One, Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article One grants Congress various enumerated powers and the ability to pass laws "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers. Article One also establishes the procedures for passing a bill and places various limits on the powers of Congress and the states from abusing their powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Two of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding the executive branch

Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforces federal laws. Article Two vests the power of the executive branch in the office of the president of the United States, lays out the procedures for electing and removing the president, and establishes the president's powers and responsibilities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Three of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding the judicial branch

Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the U.S. federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Note</span> Type of paper money that was issued from 1862 to 1971 in the United States

A United States Note, also known as a Legal Tender Note, is a type of paper money that was issued from 1862 to 1971 in the United States. Having been current for 109 years, they were issued for longer than any other form of U.S. paper money. They were known popularly as "greenbacks", a name inherited from the earlier greenbacks, the Demand Notes, that they replaced in 1862. Often termed Legal Tender Notes, they were named United States Notes by the First Legal Tender Act, which authorized them as a form of fiat currency. During the early 1860s the so-called second obligation on the reverse of the notes stated:

This Note is a Legal Tender for all debts public and private except Duties on Imports and Interest on the Public Debt; and is receivable in payment of all loans made to the United States.

The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, is a clause in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nathan Clifford</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1858 to 1881

Nathan Clifford was an American statesman, diplomat and jurist.

In the United States, implied powers are powers that, although not directly stated in the Constitution, are implied to be available based on previously stated powers.

<i>Hepburn v. Griswold</i> 1870 United States Supreme Court case

Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. 603 (1870), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Chief Justice of the United States, Salmon P. Chase, speaking for the Court, declared certain parts of the Legal Tender Acts to be unconstitutional. Specifically, making United States Notes legal tender was unconstitutional.

The Taxing and Spending Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, grants the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and to constitute the federal government's taxing and spending power.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in the United States</span> Power of courts to review laws

In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided four important points of constitutional law.

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws which they deem unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution. There are similar theories that any officer, jury, or individual may do the same. The theory of state nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts, although jury nullification has.

The Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution establishes the procedure for ratifying international agreements. It empowers the President as the primary negotiator of agreements between the United States and other countries, and holds that the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate renders a treaty binding with the force of federal law.

Bills of credit are documents similar to banknotes issued by a government that represent a government's indebtedness to the holder. They are typically designed to circulate as currency or currency substitutes. Bills of credit are mentioned in Article One, Section 10, Clause One of the United States Constitution, where their issuance by state governments is prohibited.

Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which issuance of greenbacks as legal tender in peacetime was challenged. The Legal Tender Acts of 1862 and 1863 were upheld.

Willard v. Tayloe, 75 U.S. 557 (1869), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that courts of equity deciding issues of contract have discretion to determine the form of relief based on the circumstances of each individual case. The Court established a new rule to determine the form of relief: Relief should serve the ends of justice, and should be withheld if it appears likely to produce hardship or injustice to either party.

A general welfare clause is a section that appears in many constitutions and in some charters and statutes that allows that the governing body empowered by the document to enact laws to promote the general welfare of the people, which is sometimes worded as the public welfare. In some countries, it has been used as a basis for legislation promoting the health, safety, morals, and well-being of the people governed by it.

United States v. More, 7 U.S. 159 (1805), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals from criminal cases in the circuit courts by writs of error. Relying on the Exceptions Clause, More held that Congress's enumerated grants of appellate jurisdiction to the Court operated as an exercise of Congress's power to eliminate all other forms of appellate jurisdiction.

References

  1. ↑ Act of Congress, Statutes at Large , Volume 12, 37th Congress, Session II, Chapter 33, pp. 345–348 (1862-02-25). This Act authorized issuance of $150,000,000 in United States Notes, commonly referred to as greenbacks, plus $500,000,000 in interest-bearing bonds.
  2. ↑ Legal Tender cases, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001–05.
  3. ↑ Hepburn v. Griswold , 75 U.S. 603, 618–19 (1869).
  4. ↑ Sachs, Leon. 1933. "Stare Decisis and the Legal Tender Cases." Virginia Law Review 20: 864–65
  5. ↑ Hepburn, 75 U.S. at 624.
  6. ↑ Hepburn, 75 U.S. at 625.
  7. ↑ Pusey, Merlo. Matter of Delicacy: The Court Copes With Disability Archived 2007-07-13 at the Wayback Machine , Supreme Court Historical Society 1979 Yearbook.
  8. ↑ Knox v. Lee , 79 U.S. 457 (1871).
  9. ↑ Juilliard v. Greenman , 110 U.S. 421 (1884).
  10. ↑ Friedberg, Arthur and Friedberg, Ira. Paper Money of the United States: A Complete Illustrated Guide With Valuations . "From the first year of Federal paper money, 1861, to the present. ..."
  11. ↑ Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, "Fun Facts About Money". Retrieved 2007-02-24.
  12. ↑ The Articles of Confederation stated: "The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority ... to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States"
  13. ↑ Hepburn, 75 U.S. at 619.
  14. ↑ Hearings Before Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 100th Congress, 1st Session, Nomination of Robert H. Bork to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1987).
  15. ↑ Paulsen, Michael Stokes. "How to Interpret the Constitution (and How Not To)" Archived 2007-06-09 at the Wayback Machine , 115 Yale Law Journal 2037, 2061 n. 46 (2006).
  16. ↑ The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Archived 2007-02-10 at the Wayback Machine , ed. Madison, James (August 16, 1787). Retrieved February 24, 2007. One delegate at the Constitutional Convention went so far as to say that an express power to emit paper money would be "as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelation".
  17. ↑ Siegan, Bernard. The Supreme Court's Constitution, (1987), page 36: "The central government would be able to emit promissory paper 'as it will be necessary or safe' pursuant to the borrowing power."
  18. ↑ Siegan, Bernard. The Supreme Court's Constitution, (1987), page 27: "Because the power was not banned, Congress could print paper money and designate it legal tender under its necessary and proper power (article I, section 8, clause 18) once the required relationship to an enumerated power had been established."
  19. ↑ The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Archived 2007-02-10 at the Wayback Machine , ed. Madison, James (August 16, 1787). Retrieved February 24, 2007. The full text of Madison's footnote is as follows: "This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts."
  20. ↑ Madison, James. Federalist #44 (January 25, 1788).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.