For seven per cent stock.

For six per cent stock.....

For five per cent call certificates.

Cotten certificates, act April 21, 1862.
Interest on loans.

RECEIPTS FROM JANUARY 1 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1863.

For eight per cent stock..

...

For four per cent call certificates.

$107,292,900 38,737,650 6,810,050 22,992,900 482,200 2,000,000

140,210

Balance in treasury....

From which is to be deducted the amount of treasury notes which have been funded and brought in for cancelation, but have not yet been regularly audited, es

11,629,278

56,636 32,212,290

59,044,449

$519,368,559

601,522,893

$82,154,334

timated..

Total.....

65,000,000

$17,154,334

The public debt (exclusive of the foreign loan) at the same period was as follows:

In order to estimate the amount of treasury notes in circulation at the date of this report, there must be added the further sum of one hundred millions for the two months which have elapsed since the date of the above schedules.

The balance of appropriations already made by Congress, and not drawn on September 30, stood as follows:

The estimate submitted by the various departments for the support of the government, are made to 1st July, 1864, the end of the fiscal year, and are as follows:

If these estimates be extended to embrace the remaining six months of the calendar year, they must be doubled, and that sum added to the undrawn appropriations would make an aggregate of $1,427,448,778.

Mr. OLDHAM of Texas submitted to the Rebel Senate, on the 22d of December, a plan of financial relief, the main feature of which is the levy of such a tax as will extinguish a large portion of their debt. For instance, he proposes a tax of fifty per cent on all outstanding Treasury notes, and a certain other tax ou all Government securities, on the ground that the amount left after the tax would be worth as much as the whole is This plan is similar to that suggested by JEFFERSON DAVIS in his

now.

message.

ARE UNITED STATES TREASURY NOTES A LEGAL TENDER?

DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.

WE have already announced the decision of the Court of Appeals of New York State, holding that Congress had the power to declare treasury notes lawful money, and to make them a legal tender. This question has now been carried to the Supreme Court of the United States, and in order that our readers may fully understand the points at issue and examine and weigh for themselves the arguments used, we give this month the opinion of two of the judges of the Court of Appeals, to wit: that of Justice BALCOM, in favor of, and Justice DENIO against the conclusion of the court. We should be glad to give the opinions of the other judges, but their great length prevents our doing so. It will be remembered that in July last we published opinions of two of the justices of the New York Supreme Court on this same question.

LEWIS II. MEYERS, Plaintiff and Appellant ns. JAMES J. ROSEVELT, Defendant and Respondent.

The facts of the case are as follows: The defendant held a bond and mortgage, that the plaintiff had obligated himself to pay, and which became due in August, 1857. They were given to secure the repayment of a loan of $8,000, made by the defendant in gold, or its equivalent, in

1854.

In June, 1862, the plaintiff, desiring to pay and discharge the mortgage, tendered to the defendant $8,170 (being the full amount of principal and interest due on the same), in notes of the United States, issued under the act of Congress, approved February 25, 1862, entitled "An act to authorize the issue of United States notes, and for the redemption and funding thereof, and for funding the floating debt of the United States."

The defendant refused to receive the same, as legal tender, and claimed that the repayment should be made in gold coin of the United States, as being the money in which the loan was made, But he received the notes conditionally, under an agreement with the plaintiff, that the question, whether said notes were a legal tender in payment of the mortgage debt and interest, should be submitted to the court; and if the court should decide that said notes were a legal tender and discharge of said bond and mortgage, then the defendant should deliver up said bond and mortgage, and acknowledge satisfaction thereof, and discharge the same of record. But if the court should decide otherwise, the plaintiff should pay to the defendant the further sum of $326.78, with interest from the 11th day of June, 1862, to entitle him to the bond and mortgage and to have the same canceled of record.

The Supreme Court held that the United States notes were not a legal tender in payment of said mortgage debt; and that the plaintiff must pay the defendant the further sum of $326.78 and interest from the 11th day of June, 1862, and gave judgment accordingly in favor of the defendant, The plaintiff appealed from the judgment to this court.

OPINION OF JUDGE BALCOM,

HOLDING THAT UNITED STATES NOTES ARE A LEGAL TENDER, AND REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME Court.

BALCOM, J. The bond and mortgage which the plaintiff offered to pay to the defendant, in notes of the United States, were given to secure the repayment of a loan of $8,000, made in gold or its equivalent, in 1854. The borrower was to pay the interest thereon semi-annually, and the principal in August, 1857. The plaintiff obligated himself to pay the bond and mortgage; and the question in the case is, whether he could discharge the same by a tender of the amount due thereon in notes of the United States.

The notes tendered were issued under and by virtue of the act of Congress, approved February 25, 1862, which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, to issue on the credit of the United States, one hundred and fifty millions of dollars of United States notes, not bearing interest, payable to bearer, at the treasury of the United States, in denominations not less than five dollars; and the act declares that such notes "shall be 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 certain bonds of the United States.

The principal point made by defendant's counsel is that Congress had no authority to pass this act; and the principal questions in the case are, whether Congress has power to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, or to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.

I agree that Congress does not possess this power if it is not conferred upon it by the Constitution of the United States; for whatever power or authority it has is granted to it by that instrument.

The Constitution expressly confers power upon Congress "to borrow money on the credit of the United States;" "to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin;" "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;" "to raise and support armies;" "to provide and maintain a navy ;" "to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions;" and "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." (Cons. art. 1, § 1.) It declares that, "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion." (Art. 4, § 4.) Also that "this Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." (Art. 6, sub. 2.)

The Constitution authorizes the formation or erection of new States within the jurisdiction of others; and also the formation of new States by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, by the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

(Art. 4, § 3.) All the States (subject only to this exception), must forever remain in the Union in the same shape they were admitted. No right of secession is reserved to any State, or its citizens, by the Constitution, and none can be implied or spelled out from its provisions or history, or by the application of any principle of public law. The Union is indissoluble except by an amendment of the Constitution, or its abrogation, in a legal manner.

The doctrine that the federal Constitution is but a compact between the States, and that any State can lawfully withdraw from the Union by a legislative act of such State, or a resolution of a convention of its people, needs no special notice. It is almost as absurd as the idea that the Constitution of a State is a mere compact between counties, and that a county can secede from a State government at the pleasure of the inhabitants of such county.

I have enumerated but a small number of the powers specifically granted to Congress and the government of the United States by the Constitution. But I think I have mentioned enough to show that the Consti tution provides a strong government, which has the right of self-preservation, against all unlawful combinations or revolutionary proceedings for its overthrow. And no one can doubt that an army and navy, as well as the militia of the several States, are lawful and constitutional means, when others are insufficient, for putting down a rebellion and preserving the Union. The authority to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions, implies no prohihition against employing the army and navy for such purposes; nor does it imply that the militia cannot be used for suppressing a rebellion as well as a mere insurrection. A contrary doctrine would make the government of the United States almost as feeble as the old confederation was, which was abandoned by reason of its weakness.

These views are entirely consistent with all legitimate State rights. They only make such rights subordinate to certain great powers that the people granted to Congress and the national government, by the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. (Preamble to Const.)

No State can coin money; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; or pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. (Art. 1, sec. 10, sub. 1.) But Congress is not prohibited from doing either of these things, although it is prohibited, as well as the States, from passing any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, or granting any title of nobility. (Art. 1, §§ 9, 10.)

At the time the act in question was passed, the legislatures, or conventions, in nine States of the Union, had adopted pretended ordinances of secession from the Union; and a large portion of the inhabitants of such States, if not a majority of them, were in open rebellion against the gov ernment of the United States, and at least three hundred thousand of them were armed and doing all they possibly could to overthrow such government; and their numbers were rapidly increasing.

So formidable a rebellion had never been known; and the means to be provided for its suppression were necessarily greater than any government, ancient or modern, had ever furnished suddenly for any purpose. It fore