such coins are by the Constitution, the standard of value, the better opinion would seem to be that they become legal tender for that purpose, if minted of the required weight and fineness, as soon as they are coined and put in circulation by lawful authority, but it is unnecessary to decide that question in this case, as the Congress, by the sixteenth section of the act establishing a mint, provided that all the gold and silver coins which shall have been struck at, and issued from, the said mint shall be a lawful tender in all payments whatsoever-those of full weight "according to the respective values herein declared, and those of less than full weight at values proportioned to their respective weights." Such a regulation is at all events highly expedient, as all experience shows that even gold and silver coins are liable to be diminished in weight by wear and abrasion, even if it is not absolutely necessary in order to constitute the coins, if of full weight, a legal tender.

Enough has already been remarked to show that the money unit of the United States is the coined dollar, described in the act establishing the mint, but if more be wanted it will be found in the twentieth section of that act, which provides that the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or tenths, &c., and that all accounts in the public offices and all proceedings in the federal courts shall be kept and had in conformity to that regulation.-(1 Statutes at Large, 248, 250.)

Completed, as the circle of measures adopted by Congress were, to put the new government into successful operation, by the passage of that act, it will be instructive to take a brief review of the important events which occurred within the period of ten years next preceding its passage, or of the ten years next following the time when that measure was first proposed in the Congress of the Confederation. Two reasons suggest the twenty-first of February, 1782, as the time to commence the review, in addition to the fact that it was on that day that the committee of Congress made their report approving of the project to establish a national mint.-(VII. Journal of Congress, 286.)

They are as follows: (1) Because that date just precedes the close of the war of the revolution; and, (2) Because the date at the same time extends back to a period when all America had come to the conclusion that all the paper currency in circulation was utterly worthless and that nothing was fit for a standard of value but gold and silver coin fabricated and stamped by the national authority. Discussion upon the subject was continued and the ordinance was passed, but the measure was not put in operation, as the Convention met the next year, and the Constitution was framed, adopted, and ratified, the President and the members of Congress were elected, laws were passed, the judicial system was organized, the executive departments were created, the revenue system established, and provision was made to execute the power vested in Congress to coin money and provide a standard of value, as ordained by the Constitution.

Perfect consistency characterizes the measures of that entire period

in respect to the matter in question, and it would be strange if it had been otherwise, as the whole series of measures were to a very large extent the doings of the same class of men, whether the remark is applied to the old Congress, or the convention which framed the Constitution, or to the first and second sessions of the new Congress which passed the laws referred to and put the new system of government under the Constitution into full operation. Wise and complete as those laws were, still some difficulties arose, as the several states had not adopted the money unit of the United States, nor the money of account prescribed by the twentieth section of the act establishing the mint. Such embarrassments, however, were chiefly felt in the federal courts, and they were not of long continuance, as the several states, one after another, in pretty rapid succession, adopted the new system established by Congress, both as to the money unit and the money of account.

Virginia, December 19, 1792, re-enacted that section in the act of Congress without any material alteration, and New Hampshire, on the twentieth of February, 1794, passed a similar law. (13 HENRY'S Statutes (Va.), 478. Laws, (N. H.) 240.) Massachusetts adopted the same provision the next year, and so did Rhode Island and South Carolina.-(2 Laws Mass., 657. Rev. Laws (R. I.) p. 319. 5 Stats. (S. C.), 262.) Georgia concurred on the twenty-second of February, 1796, and New York on the twenty-second of January, 1797, and all the other states adopted the same regulation in the course of a few years.-(M. & C. Dig. (Ga.), 33. 3 Laws (N. Y.) Greenl. ed., 363.) State concurrence was essential in those particulars to the proper working of the new system, and it was cheerfully accorded by the state legislatures without unnecessary delay.

Congress established as the money unit the coin mentioned in the Constitution, and the one which had been adopted as such seven years before in the resolve passed by the Congress of the Confederation. Dollars, and decimals of dollars, were adopted as the money of account by universal consent, as may be inferred from the unanimity exhibited by the states in following the example of Congress. Nothing remained for Congress to do to perfect the new system but to execute the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, as it is clear that the Constitution makes no provision for a standard of value unless the power to establish it is conferred by that grant.

Power to fix the standard of weights and measures is vested in Congress by the Constitution in plain and unambiguous terms, and it was never doubted, certainly not until within a recent period, that the power conferred to coin money or to fabricate and stamp coins from gold and silver, which in the constitutional sense is the same thing, together with the power to determine the fincness, weight and denominations of the moneys coined, was intended to accomplish the same purpose as to values. Indubitably it was so understood by Congress in prescribing the various regulations contained in the act establishing the national mint, and it continued to be so understood by all branches of the government-executive, legislative, and judicial

and by the whole people of the United States, for the period of seventy years, from the passage of that act.

New regulations became necessary, and were passed in the meantime increasing slightly the proportion of alloy used in fabricating the gold coins, but if those enactments are carefully examined it will be found that no one of them contains anything inconsistent in principle with the views here expressed. Gold, at the time the act establishing the mint became a law, was valued fifteen to one as compared with silver, but the disparity in value gradually increased, and to such an extent that the gold coins began to disappear from circulation, and to remedy that evil Congress found it necessary to augment the relative proportion of alloy by diminishing the required amount of gold whether pure or standard. Eagles coined under that act were re, quired to contain each two hundred and thirty-two grains of pure gold, or two hundred and fifty-eight grains of standard gold.-(4 Statutes at Large, 699.)

Three years later Congress enacted that the standard for both gold and silver coins should thereafter be such that, of one thousand parts by weight, nine hundred should be of pure metal and one hundred of alloy, by which the gross weight of the dollar was reduced to four hundred and twelve and one-half grains, but the fineness of the coins was correspondingly increased, so that the money unit remained or the same intrinsic value as under the original act. Apply that rule to the eagle and it will be seen that its gross weight would be increased, as it was in fact by that act, but it continued to contain, as under the preceding act, two hundred and thirty-two grains of pure gold and no more, showing conclusively that no change was made in the value of the coins.-(5 Statutes at Large, 137.)

Double eagles and gold dollars were authorized to be "struck and coined" at the mint, by the act of the third of March, 1849, but the standard established for other gold coins was not changed, and the provision was that the new coins should also be legal tender for their coined value.-(9 Statutes at Large, 397.)

Fractional silver coins were somewhat reduced in value by the act of the twenty-first of February, 1853, but the same act provided to the effect that the silver coins issued in conformity thereto should not be a legal tender for any sum exceeding five dollars, showing that the purpose of the enactment was to prevent the fractional coins, so essential for daily use, from being hoarded or otherwise withdrawn from circulation.-(10 Statutes at Large, 160.)

Suppose it be conceded, however, that the effect of that act was slightly to debase the fractional silver coins struck and coined under it, still it is quite clear that the amount was too inconsiderable to furnish any solid argument against the proposition that the standard of value in the United States was fixed by the Constitution and that such was the understanding, both of the government and of the people of the United States, for a period of more than seventy years from the time the Constitution was adopted and put in successful operation under the laws of Congress. Throughout that period the value of

the money unit was never diminished, and it remains to-day, in respect to value, what it was when it was defined in the act establishing the mint, and it is safe to affirm that no one of the changes made in the other coins, except the fractional silver coins, ever extended one whit beyond the appropriate limit of constitutional regulation.

Treasury notes, called United States notes, were authorized to be issued by the act of the twenty-fifth of February, 1862, to the amount of one hundred and fifty millions of dollars, on the credit of the United States, but they were not to bear interest and were to be made payable to bearer at the treasury. They were to be issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, and the further provision was that the notes so issued should be lawful money and legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except duties on imports and interest upon bonds and notes of the United States, which the act provides "shall be paid in coin.”—(12 Statutes at Large, 345.)

Subsequent acts passed for a similar purpose also except "certificates of indebtedness and of deposit," but it will not be necessary to refer specially to the other acts as the history of that legislation is fully given in the prior decision of this court upon the same subject.— (HEPBURN vs. GRISWOLD, 8 Wallace, 618. 12 Statutes at Large, 370, 532, 710, 822.)

Strictly examinea it is doubtful whether either of the cases before the court present any such questions as those which have been discussed in the opinion of the majority of the court just read, but suppose they do, which is not admitted, it then becomes necessary to inquire in the first place whether those questions are not closed by the recorded decisions of this court. Two questions are examined in the opinion of the majority of the court: (1) Whether the legal-tender acts are constitutional as to contracts made before the acts were passed. (2) Whether they are valid if applied to contracts made since their passage.

Assume that the views here expressed are correct and it matters not whether the contract was made before or after the act of Congress was passed, as it necessarily follows that Congress cannot, under any circumstances, make paper promises, of any kind, a legal tender in payment of debts. Prior to the decision just pronounced it is conceded that the second question presented in the record was never determined by this court, except as it is involved in the first question, but it is admitted by the majority of the court that the first question, that is the question whether the acts under consideration are constitutional as to contracts made before their passage, was fully presented in the case of HEPBURN vs. GRISWOLD, 8 Wallace, 603, and that the court decided that an act of Congress making mere paper promises to pay dollars a legal tender in payment of debts previously contracted is unconstitutional and void.

Admitted or not, it is as clear as anything in legal decision can be that the judgment of the court in that case controls the first question presented in the cases before the court, unless it be held that the judg

ment in that case was given for the wrong party and that the opinion given by the Chief Justice ought to be overruled.

Attempt is made to show that the second question is an open one, but the two, in my judgment, involve the same considerations, as Congress possesses no other power upon the subject than that which is derived from the grant to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin. By that remark it is not meant to deny the proposition that Congress in executing the express grants may not. pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying the same into execution, as provided in another clause of the same section of the Constitution. Much consideration of that topic is not required, as the discussion was pretty nearly exhausted by the Chief Justice in the former case, which arose under the same act and in which he gave the opinion.-(HEPBURN vs. GRISWOLD, 8 Wallace, 614, 625.)

In that case the contract bore date prior to the passage of the law, and he showed conclusively that it could never be necessary and proper, within the meaning of the Constitution, that Congress, in executing any of the express powers, should pass laws to compel a creditor to accept paper promises as fulfilling a contract for the payment of money expressed in dollars. Obviously the decision was confined to the case before the court, but I am of the opinion that the same rule must be applied whether the contract was made before or after the passage of the law, as the contract for the payment of money, expressed in dollars, is a contract to make the payment in such money as the Constitution recognizes and establishes as a standard of value. Money values can no more be measured without a standard of value than distances without a standard of extent, or quantities without a standard of weights or measures, and it is as necessary that there should be a money unit as that there should be a unit of extent, or of weight, or quantity.-(7 Jefferson's Works, 472. 22 Financial Pamph., 417. Horner's Bullion Report.)

Credit currency, whether issued by the States or the United States, or by private corporations or individuals, is not recognized by the Constitution as a standard of value, nor can it be made such by any law which Congress or the States can pass, as the laws of trade are stronger than any legislative enactment. Commerce requires a standard of value and all experience warrants the prediction that commerce will have it, whether the United States agree or disagree, as the laws of commerce in that respect are stronger than the laws of any single nation of the commercial world.-(McCulloch Commercial Dictionary, (ed. 1869), 330.)

Values cannot be measured without a standard any more than time or duration, or length, surface or solidity, or weight, gravity, or quantity. Something in every such case must be adopted as a unit which bears a known relation to that which is to be measured, as the dollar for values, the hour for time or duration, the foot of twelve inches for length, the yard for cloth measure, the square foot or yard for surface, the cubic foot for solidity, the gallon for liquids, and the