19 Jan 2018 11:27 pm
"You shall not pervert justice in measurement of length, weight, or quantity. You shall have true scales, true weights, true measures dry and liquid." — Leviticus 19 v 35 - The Bible
In the book of Micah, 6 v 10, God punished the tribe of Judah severely for using the "infamous false measure", "false scales", and a "bag of light weights".
Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field delivered a scathing indictment of his bretheren on the bench in a lengthy dissenting opinion. He began by saying, "From the judgment of the court in this case, and from all the positions advanced in its support, I dissent." He declared:
The question of the power of Congress to impart the quality of legal tender to the notes of the United States, and thus make them money and a standard of value, is not new here. Unfortunately it has been too frequently before the court, and its latest decision, previous to this one, has never been entirely accepted and approved by the country. Nor should this excite surprise; for whenever it is declared that this government, ordained to establish justice, has the power to alter the condition of contracts between private parties, and authorize their payment or discharge in something different from that which the parties stipulated, thus disturbing the relations of commerce and the business of the community generally, the doctrine will not and ought not to be readily accepted. ...If there be anything in the history of the Constitution which can be established with moral certainty, it is that the framers of that instrument intended to prohibit the issue of legal tender notes both by the general government and by the States; and thus prevent interference with the contracts of private parties.
Mr. Justice Field reviewed the distribution of the Continental notes issued during the Revolution; notes which depreciated into practical worthlessness in the hands of those who accepted them, although it was declared by law that they would be accepted at par value with gold and silver coin. Justice Field noted:
...legislative declaration cannot make the promise of a thing the equivalent of the thing itself.
He noted the words of Justice Story, who wrote of "other laws" which were enacted in support of the "legal tender" laws:
"They entailed the most enormous evils on the country, and introduced a system of fraud, chicanery, and profligacy which destroyed all private confidence and all industry and enterprise."
Mr. Justice Field quoted from the works of George Bancroft on the History of the Formation of the Constitution, in Volume 2, page 134, noting that "authority to issue bills of credit that should be legal tender was refused to the general government by the vote of nine States against New Jersey and Maryland. It was Madison who decided the vote of Virginia, and he has left his testimony that 'the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts, was cut off.' ...So the adoption of the Constitution is to be the end forever of paper money, whether issued by the several States or by the United States". Justice Stephen Field then delivered the most scathing indictment of his fellow justices on the bench:
"For nearly three-quarters of a century after the adoption of the Constitution, and until the legislation during the recent civil war, no jurist and no statesman of any position in the country ever pretended that a power to impart the quality of legal tender to its notes was vested in the general government. There is no recorded word of even one in favor of its possessing the power. All conceded, as an axiom of constitutional law, that the power did not exist."
He recognized the exigency that existed because of a lack of a circulating medium to prosecute the war, but also noted that the "war merely increased the urgency for money; it did not add to the powers of the government nor change their nature; that if the power existed it might be equally exercised when a loan was made to meet ordinary expenses in time of peace as when vast sums were needed to support an army or a navy in time of war. The wants of the government could never be the measure of its powers." He then reiterated a timeworn axiom of political expediency:
"So it always happens that whenever a wrong principle of conduct, political or personal, is adopted on a plea of necessity, it will be afterwards followed on a plea of convenience."
He responded to the government debasing the value of the coin by declaring that "Arbitrary and profligate governments have often resorted to this miserable scheme of robbery". He noted that one of the purposes for the creation of the government, "as expressed in the preamble of the Constitution, was the establishment of justice, and not a line nor a word is found in that instrument which sanctions any intentional wrong to the citizen, either in war or in peace." Justice Field concluded his remarks by saying:
"From the decision of the court I see only evil likely to follow. There have been times within the memory of all of us when the legal tender notes of the United States were not exchangeable for more than one-half of their nominal value. The possibility of such depreciation will always attend paper money."
In the book of Micah, 6 v 10, God punished the tribe of Judah severely for using the "infamous false measure", "false scales", and a "bag of light weights".
Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field delivered a scathing indictment of his bretheren on the bench in a lengthy dissenting opinion. He began by saying, "From the judgment of the court in this case, and from all the positions advanced in its support, I dissent." He declared:
The question of the power of Congress to impart the quality of legal tender to the notes of the United States, and thus make them money and a standard of value, is not new here. Unfortunately it has been too frequently before the court, and its latest decision, previous to this one, has never been entirely accepted and approved by the country. Nor should this excite surprise; for whenever it is declared that this government, ordained to establish justice, has the power to alter the condition of contracts between private parties, and authorize their payment or discharge in something different from that which the parties stipulated, thus disturbing the relations of commerce and the business of the community generally, the doctrine will not and ought not to be readily accepted. ...If there be anything in the history of the Constitution which can be established with moral certainty, it is that the framers of that instrument intended to prohibit the issue of legal tender notes both by the general government and by the States; and thus prevent interference with the contracts of private parties.
Mr. Justice Field reviewed the distribution of the Continental notes issued during the Revolution; notes which depreciated into practical worthlessness in the hands of those who accepted them, although it was declared by law that they would be accepted at par value with gold and silver coin. Justice Field noted:
...legislative declaration cannot make the promise of a thing the equivalent of the thing itself.
He noted the words of Justice Story, who wrote of "other laws" which were enacted in support of the "legal tender" laws:
"They entailed the most enormous evils on the country, and introduced a system of fraud, chicanery, and profligacy which destroyed all private confidence and all industry and enterprise."
Mr. Justice Field quoted from the works of George Bancroft on the History of the Formation of the Constitution, in Volume 2, page 134, noting that "authority to issue bills of credit that should be legal tender was refused to the general government by the vote of nine States against New Jersey and Maryland. It was Madison who decided the vote of Virginia, and he has left his testimony that 'the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts, was cut off.' ...So the adoption of the Constitution is to be the end forever of paper money, whether issued by the several States or by the United States". Justice Stephen Field then delivered the most scathing indictment of his fellow justices on the bench:
"For nearly three-quarters of a century after the adoption of the Constitution, and until the legislation during the recent civil war, no jurist and no statesman of any position in the country ever pretended that a power to impart the quality of legal tender to its notes was vested in the general government. There is no recorded word of even one in favor of its possessing the power. All conceded, as an axiom of constitutional law, that the power did not exist."
He recognized the exigency that existed because of a lack of a circulating medium to prosecute the war, but also noted that the "war merely increased the urgency for money; it did not add to the powers of the government nor change their nature; that if the power existed it might be equally exercised when a loan was made to meet ordinary expenses in time of peace as when vast sums were needed to support an army or a navy in time of war. The wants of the government could never be the measure of its powers." He then reiterated a timeworn axiom of political expediency:
"So it always happens that whenever a wrong principle of conduct, political or personal, is adopted on a plea of necessity, it will be afterwards followed on a plea of convenience."
He responded to the government debasing the value of the coin by declaring that "Arbitrary and profligate governments have often resorted to this miserable scheme of robbery". He noted that one of the purposes for the creation of the government, "as expressed in the preamble of the Constitution, was the establishment of justice, and not a line nor a word is found in that instrument which sanctions any intentional wrong to the citizen, either in war or in peace." Justice Field concluded his remarks by saying:
"From the decision of the court I see only evil likely to follow. There have been times within the memory of all of us when the legal tender notes of the United States were not exchangeable for more than one-half of their nominal value. The possibility of such depreciation will always attend paper money."