[67] Baldwin _v._ Hale, 1 Wallace, 223 (1863). [68] Baldwin _v._ Hale, _supra_. [69] Juilliard _v._ Greenman, 110 U. S., 421 (1884), citing and quoting McCulloch _v._ Maryland. [70] Art. i., 8: 1, 2, 5. [71] Distinctions as to United States notes, coin, currency, legal tender, etc., are brought out in Juilliard _v._ Greenman, _supra_; Hepburn _v._ Griswold, 8 Wallace, 603 (1869); Parker _v._ Davis, 12 Wallace, 79 (1871); Trebilcock _v._ Wilson, 12 Wallace, 687 (1871). [72] Knox _v._ Lee, Parker _v._ Davis, 12 Wallace, 554 (1871). [73] An account of the struggles of political parties, and of the successive decisions of the Supreme Court as to Legal Tender Acts belongs to the history of the law rather than to a statement of the essentials of present constitutional law. Accounts of this struggle, available in histories of the United States, may be compared with Justice Stephen J. Field’s account in J. Norton Pomeroy’s _Some Account of the Work of Stephen J. Field as a Legislator, State Judge, and Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States_ (1881), (Edition by George C. Gorham, 1895) pp. 65–86. Mr. Justice Field’s dissenting opinions from the decisions of the Supreme Court which sustain the constitutionality of the Acts are based largely on his conception of the principle of the obligation of a contract as contained in the Constitution respecting “gold and silver coin.” For the history of the Acts, the decision of the Court invalidating them (1869); the increase of the membership of the Court (1870); the reversal of the earlier decisions (1871), and the final decision in Juilliard _v._ Greenman (1883), consult Rhodes, vi., 268, 270–273, and Note. [74] Art. i., 10: 1. [75] Briscoe _v._ Bank of Kentucky, 11 Peters, 257 (1837). [76] Darrington _v._ The Bank of Alabama, 13; Howard, 12 Briscoe _v._ Bank of Kentucky, _supra_. [77] Art. i., 8: 6. [78] _Id._ 5, 10: 1. [79] United States _v._ Marigold, 9 Howard, 560 (1849); Fox _v._ Ohio, 5 Howard, 410. [80] _In re_ Rapier, 143 U. S., 110 (1892); Battle _v._ U. S., 209 U. S., 36. [81] Wheaton _v._ Peters, 8 Peters, 591 (1834). [82] Vanini _et al._ _v._ Paine _et al._ 1 Harr. (Del.) 65, quoted in Patterson _v._ Kentucky, 97 U.S., 501 (1878). [83] _Id._ See also Herdic _v._ Roessler, 109 New York, 127 (1888); Hill and Co. Lmtd. _v._ Hoover, 220 U.S., 329. “Where a suit is brought on a contract of which a patent is the subject matter, either to enforce such contract, or to annul it, the case arises on the contract and not under the patent laws.” Hartell _v._ Tilghman, 99 U.S., 558. See also Dale Tile Mfg. Co. _v._ Hyatt, 125 U.S., 46 (1888). [84] Rex _v._ Dawson, 5 State Trials. [85] U. S. _v._ Smith, 5 Wheaton, 153 (1820). [86] Art. iii., 2: 1. [87] U. S. _v._ Rodgers, 150 U. S., 249 (1893). [88] Art. i., 8: 11; The Prize Cases, 2 Black, 635 (1862).