It had been denied by one court only, that of Kentucky, the eminent Chancellor dissenting.

There was scarcely a Republican lawyer or a Republican judge in the country who doubted the constitutional power of Congress to impose such a quality upon the paper currency if, in the opinion of Congress, the public safety should require it.
The question came before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Hepburn _v._ Griswold, and was decided by that Court in December, 1869.
The Court were all agreed that Congress has power under the Constitution to do not only what the Constitution expressly authorizes, but to adopt any means appropriate, and plainly adapted to carry in to effect any such express power.

So the two questions arose: First, Was the power to issue legal tender notes an appropriate, and plainly adapted means to any end which the National Government has a right to accomplish?
Second, Who are to judge of the question whether the means be so appropriate, or plainly adapted?
There were then seven Justices of the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Chase, with the three Democratic Justices held the Legal Tender Law unconstitutional, and declared that a law making anything but gold or silver legal tender for debts was neither appropriate nor plainly adapted to carrying on war, or any other end for which the National Government was erected.
He had, when Secretary of the Treasury during the War of the Rebellion, originally advised the issuing of these legal tender notes.

He had visited the Capitol.